4 ms·
I don't think it's the same as shooting a trespasser, the theory for shooting trespassers is that they may directly pose a threat to your safety. It's hard to a
by fnordfnordfnord 10y ago
I don't think it's the same as shooting a trespasser, the theory for shooting trespassers is that they may directly pose a threat to your safety. It's hard to argue that a drone poses such a threat unless they're chasing you or have a weapon mounted on them or something.
If the shooter from OP's link used a .22 or anything other than bird shot, then they are a real fool and a danger to everyone around them. Off the top of my head I'm inclined to think that the reach of a shotgun is probably about the right distance that ought to be protected, maybe a little bit further because of cheap optics.
- pdabbadabba 10y ago> I don't think it's the same as shooting a trespasser, the theory for shooting trespassers is that they may directly pose a threat to your safety. I really feel the need to drive this point home, for obvious reasons: there is no such theory. You CANNOT DO THIS. You cannot shoot a trespasser on your land, just because he is trespassing. There has to be something else involved like reasonable fear of imminent bodily injury. The threat cannot necessarily be implied from the mere fact that he is trespassing. (It's clearly a different case if the trespassing is happening in your field in broad daylight v. in your bedroom in the middle of the night.)
- fnordfnordfnord 10y agoAgreed, I should have been more precise.
- RUG3Y 10y agoJust to clarify, shooting a .22 into the air is still very dangerous. A .22 round can travel a mile or so after being fired to the air. Anything other than birdshot in this situation would be unacceptable, IMO, assuming shooting the drone is acceptable in the first place.