4 ms·

Yes, of course it is illegal to shoot an aircraft! (Though I'm less clear on whether that particular rule applies to consumer drones.) But, again, there is no

Yes, of course it is illegal to shoot an aircraft! (Though I'm less clear on whether that particular rule applies to consumer drones.) But, again, there is no 'conflict' between the FAA regs and Causby. Causby does not allow you to shoot things, it just establishes the boundaries of property owner's property rights.

bmelton 10y ago
So, what we don't have here is jurisprudence that relates to the trespass and/or shooting of objects. Your other statement is correct that you can't shoot a person merely for trespassing, but I'd say it's (at least slightly) more reasonable to assume that if Johnny 5 from Short Circuit (or a scarier robot) were wheeling up to your front door, that you might be within your existing property rights to shoot it. Because it's property and not people, the redress would likely not be criminal, but civil. Within Causby's 83 foot criteria, the rationality of that defense doesn't really change, whether aircraft or no. Ergo, you would have a conflict between Causby and US Code. I dare say that because it's a federal rule, it would carry less weight than a local one, as 83+n feet is hardly un-arbitrary. Long story short though, there's quite a lot of nuance here for which we don't have precedent.
- pdabbadabba 10y ago
  I think what we have here is a confusion between rights and remedies. Causby tells you what your rights are. But it doesn't say much about what remedies you're permitted to employ in securing those rights (except getting 5th Amendment takings compensation, which is what was going on in the case). These are quite separate legal questions. Ordinarily (but not always), you're limited to using peaceful means to secure your rights. That would generally not include shooting stuff, though there may be exception. So where I think you're right is that we don't have a good rule that tells you whether you can shoot a robot that walks/flies/drives onto your property. This is definitely different from shooting a person, and one could imagine it being permissible in certain situations. And come to think of it, we probably do have questions about your rights to remove or destroy other people's stuff when it's left on your property without your permission. That might be indirectly informative. But I don't have the time or inclination to really look into it at the moment. :)
  - bmelton 10y ago
    Sorry, not trying to confuse the two, so much as acknowledging that they're both probably complicated here, but also as remedy often factors in to the severity of a crime, then it extends lenience to the interpretation of a right. e.g., I can get away with kicking your tire than I can your shin. Of course, damages is a factor here too. Property rights are complicated as hell though. It occurs to me that one doesn't necessarily even have the unilateral right to destroy one's own property, so, yeah, I'm just going to rest on "it's complicated" and hope somebody more informed comes along to school me.

bmelton 10y ago

So, what we don't have here is jurisprudence that relates to the trespass and/or shooting of objects. Your other statement is correct that you can't shoot a person merely for trespassing, but I'd say it's (at least slightly) more reasonable to assume that if Johnny 5 from Short Circuit (or a scarier robot) were wheeling up to your front door, that you might be within your existing property rights to shoot it. Because it's property and not people, the redress would likely not be criminal, but civil. Within Causby's 83 foot criteria, the rationality of that defense doesn't really change, whether aircraft or no. Ergo, you would have a conflict between Causby and US Code. I dare say that because it's a federal rule, it would carry less weight than a local one, as 83+n feet is hardly un-arbitrary. Long story short though, there's quite a lot of nuance here for which we don't have precedent.

pdabbadabba 10y ago
I think what we have here is a confusion between rights and remedies. Causby tells you what your rights are. But it doesn't say much about what remedies you're permitted to employ in securing those rights (except getting 5th Amendment takings compensation, which is what was going on in the case). These are quite separate legal questions. Ordinarily (but not always), you're limited to using peaceful means to secure your rights. That would generally not include shooting stuff, though there may be exception. So where I think you're right is that we don't have a good rule that tells you whether you can shoot a robot that walks/flies/drives onto your property. This is definitely different from shooting a person, and one could imagine it being permissible in certain situations. And come to think of it, we probably do have questions about your rights to remove or destroy other people's stuff when it's left on your property without your permission. That might be indirectly informative. But I don't have the time or inclination to really look into it at the moment. :)
- bmelton 10y ago
  Sorry, not trying to confuse the two, so much as acknowledging that they're both probably complicated here, but also as remedy often factors in to the severity of a crime, then it extends lenience to the interpretation of a right. e.g., I can get away with kicking your tire than I can your shin. Of course, damages is a factor here too. Property rights are complicated as hell though. It occurs to me that one doesn't necessarily even have the unilateral right to destroy one's own property, so, yeah, I'm just going to rest on "it's complicated" and hope somebody more informed comes along to school me.