4 ms·

What question are you paraphrasing that somehow translates to shooting people? My question was about shooting down drones. Also when it comes to self-defense l

What question are you paraphrasing that somehow translates to shooting people? My question was about shooting down drones. Also when it comes to self-defense laws, most states require the shooter to genuinely believe he/she is in mortal danger before shooting. Sure some states have stand your ground laws that allow more, but I would not say it's so clear-cut that people can just start shooting other people or property when they believe their rights are being violated. It's not the people's decision as to whether a drone is violating the law. If you were arguing having the government have that right or responsibility that's a lot different. But even so shooting down aircraft is not something that should be done likely. There's a reason the FAA makes it completely illegal. Shooting a drone for flying over your property could make it go out of control and injure others.

microcolonel 9y ago
Unauthorized drones flying into controlled airspace represent a mortal threat; surely it justifies property damage, it probably would justify lethal force.
microcolonel 9y ago
> most states require the shooter to genuinely believe he/she is in mortal danger before shooting. There's one other circumstance, imminent mortal or serious violent threat to others.
romwell 9y ago
>What question are you paraphrasing that somehow translates to shooting people? My question was about shooting down drones. My bad, I meant re-stating your question if drones were replaced with people. >Also when it comes to self-defense laws, most states require the shooter to genuinely believe he/she is in mortal danger before shooting. That's why I said "limited circumstances". It would be wrong to allow to shoot down drones willy-nilly, but certain circumstances should allow it. >It's not the people's decision as to whether a drone is violating the law. Well, same reasoning can be applied to take down all self-defense laws. >Shooting a drone for flying over your property could make it go out of control and injure others. In which case you should be liable for damages.

microcolonel 9y ago

Unauthorized drones flying into controlled airspace represent a mortal threat; surely it justifies property damage, it probably would justify lethal force.

microcolonel 9y ago

> most states require the shooter to genuinely believe he/she is in mortal danger before shooting. There's one other circumstance, imminent mortal or serious violent threat to others.

romwell 9y ago

>What question are you paraphrasing that somehow translates to shooting people? My question was about shooting down drones. My bad, I meant re-stating your question if drones were replaced with people. >Also when it comes to self-defense laws, most states require the shooter to genuinely believe he/she is in mortal danger before shooting. That's why I said "limited circumstances". It would be wrong to allow to shoot down drones willy-nilly, but certain circumstances should allow it. >It's not the people's decision as to whether a drone is violating the law. Well, same reasoning can be applied to take down all self-defense laws. >Shooting a drone for flying over your property could make it go out of control and injure others. In which case you should be liable for damages.