6 ms·

Man shoots down drone, gets hit with felony charges in Minnesota

33 points by clairity 6y ago

blaser-waffle 6y ago
> The Federal Aviation Administration has said that shooting down a drone is illegal under the same federal aviation laws that make it illegal to shoot down a crewed aircraft. I get the logic, sort of, but I think this law lacks nuance. No one died, unless the drone fell on them; statutes about property damage and/or manslaughter would cover anything else.
- p_l 6y ago
  It falls under "causing danger in air transport", especially since you can't upfront ensure the fine will fall safely.
- skoskie 6y ago
  And they weren’t charging him with that crime, so reason is being applied. However, drones are now being used to carry organs for transplant, so there is now a greater than zero chance that shooting down a drone could impact human life ... however small those odds are for now.
downerending 6y ago
If the line taken here is that drone operators should be able to act with relative impunity, then drones need to be heavily regulated, with filed flight plans, and under the control of FAA flight control centers.
- mdszy 6y ago
  You realize you don't even need a flight plan to operate manned aircraft, right?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    Yes, But a manned aircraft can not hover outside my bedroom window in my backyard
    - Rebelgecko 6y ago
      As someone who used to live in a neighborhood that was frequented by "ghetto birds"[1], I have anecdotal evidence to the contrary. I think the main difference between a consumer multicoper and a helicopter is the barrier of entry to purchase one (and become qualified to fly it) and the operating costs [1]: Ice Cube once wrote a song to express his frustration w.r.t. how police helicopters outside his bedroom interfered with his sleep schedule: https://genius.com/Ice-cube-ghetto-bird-lyrics https://genius.com/Ice-cube-ghetto-bird-lyrics
    - koheripbal 6y ago
      Neither can a drone. That's already illegal. Filming into someone's bedroom is usually a felony.
  - downerending 6y ago
    No, I didn't. Perhaps that should be changed. In any case, if there's a drone flying over my house or a public space doing something unsafe or legally questionable, it ought to be possible for me to make a call and have it investigated, knowing that there's a licensing trail to follow. Likewise for operator training. If drones operate with impunity, we can expect more people to take things into their own hands.
Gunax 6y ago
You don't own the airspace above you. If someone wants to fly over your house or business, they can generally do that--airplanes fly over your private property all the time. Granted this bozo might be violating FAA guidelines by flying too low or out of sight.
- welcome_dragon 6y ago
  Depends on the locality. In TN, for example, flying a drone over private property under 500 ft can be considered criminal trespassing.
  - codeddesign 6y ago
    In general as per the FAA, your airspace ends at the tallest object - whether it’s a tree, a house, or tower structure on your property. I guess if it was low enough in some states you could argue that it failed to state intentions and you felt unsafe.
inamberclad 6y ago
We're coming back to the same question about how to 'count' RC aircraft and drones. Right now, it's a felony to interfere with the operations of any aircraft. But is a quadcopter/drone an aircraft? What about an RC plane? How big can it be before it counts? Right now, 14 CFR 107 only covers commercial UAS uses and 14 CRF 91 only covers full sized, manned aircraft. Not only do these two parts of the FAA regs not mix, parts are actively incompatible since, for example, an aircraft must stay 1000 feet ABOVE the tallest obstacle within 2000 lateral feet (when over 'congested areas'), and a part 107 regulated drone must stay BELOW 400 feet above the immediate uppermost portion of an obstacle or structure within 400 lateral feet. Furthermore, neither of these regulations cover hobby flying, except perhaps that drones are generally prohibited from flying more than 400 feet above ground level.
- zupzupper 6y ago
  Actually quadcopters/drones/fixed wing, RC aircraft et. al. are "aircraft" per the FAA. 14 CFR 91 defines both, here's the FAA interpretation of 14 CFR 91, which they also produced to explain why they were allowed to further regulate RC aircraft operations outside of the boundaries set by congress in the FAA FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. https://www.faa.gov/uas/educational_users/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf https://www.faa.gov/uas/educational_users/media/model_aircra... Basically the FAA took the stance that all these things are "aircraft" and the same sets of rules apply to their operation. Shooting down or at a drone, or RC aircraft has always violated the same set of laws, perpetrators just haven't yet been prosecuted for it yet.
koheripbal 6y ago
> "...charges of criminal damage to property and reckless discharge of a weapon within city limits." ...doesn't seem like we need specific laws here for drones. Shooting someone's property with a deadly weapon will break serious laws in almost all jurisdictions.
- clairity 6y ago
  it's pretty provocative on both sides. on one hand, flying camera scouting out private property and individuals. on the other, shooting and destroying private property. whose property (and privacy) rights should win? uncovering illegal activity is generally a societal good, but invasion of privacy is not. protecting privacy (and property) rights are a general societal good, but destroying others' property is not.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    > whose property (and privacy) rights should win? I’m of the opinion that they both violated each other’s rights and both should be punished.
petermcneeley 6y ago
I figured it out. He should have bought his own drone and interrupted the other drones flight path.
- bitxbitxbitcoin 6y ago
  Or become a falconer and have his bird "accidentally" take the drone down.
csense 6y ago
For me the biggest question is: If you don't want a drone on your property, but you don't know who owns the drone that's flying around on your land, what's the proper, lawful way for you to handle the situation? Also the article's really sketchy on facts of this specific case. What was the shooter's motive? Was the shooter an employee of the meat processing plant? If so, was the shooter acting on his own initiative, or was he ordered by his work superiors to shoot down the drone? (I've been playing the Switch re-release of Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney lately so these kinds of questions come to mind, haha.)

33 points by clairity 6y ago

> The Federal Aviation Administration has said that shooting down a drone is illegal under the same federal aviation laws that make it illegal to shoot down a crewed aircraft. I get the logic, sort of, but I think this law lacks nuance. No one died, unless the drone fell on them; statutes about property damage and/or manslaughter would cover anything else.

p_l 6y ago
It falls under "causing danger in air transport", especially since you can't upfront ensure the fine will fall safely.
skoskie 6y ago
And they weren’t charging him with that crime, so reason is being applied. However, drones are now being used to carry organs for transplant, so there is now a greater than zero chance that shooting down a drone could impact human life ... however small those odds are for now.

downerending 6y ago

If the line taken here is that drone operators should be able to act with relative impunity, then drones need to be heavily regulated, with filed flight plans, and under the control of FAA flight control centers.

mdszy 6y ago
You realize you don't even need a flight plan to operate manned aircraft, right?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  Yes, But a manned aircraft can not hover outside my bedroom window in my backyard
  - Rebelgecko 6y ago
    As someone who used to live in a neighborhood that was frequented by "ghetto birds"[1], I have anecdotal evidence to the contrary. I think the main difference between a consumer multicoper and a helicopter is the barrier of entry to purchase one (and become qualified to fly it) and the operating costs [1]: Ice Cube once wrote a song to express his frustration w.r.t. how police helicopters outside his bedroom interfered with his sleep schedule: https://genius.com/Ice-cube-ghetto-bird-lyrics https://genius.com/Ice-cube-ghetto-bird-lyrics
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    Neither can a drone. That's already illegal. Filming into someone's bedroom is usually a felony.
- downerending 6y ago
  No, I didn't. Perhaps that should be changed. In any case, if there's a drone flying over my house or a public space doing something unsafe or legally questionable, it ought to be possible for me to make a call and have it investigated, knowing that there's a licensing trail to follow. Likewise for operator training. If drones operate with impunity, we can expect more people to take things into their own hands.

Gunax 6y ago

You don't own the airspace above you. If someone wants to fly over your house or business, they can generally do that--airplanes fly over your private property all the time. Granted this bozo might be violating FAA guidelines by flying too low or out of sight.

welcome_dragon 6y ago
Depends on the locality. In TN, for example, flying a drone over private property under 500 ft can be considered criminal trespassing.
- codeddesign 6y ago
  In general as per the FAA, your airspace ends at the tallest object - whether it’s a tree, a house, or tower structure on your property. I guess if it was low enough in some states you could argue that it failed to state intentions and you felt unsafe.

inamberclad 6y ago

We're coming back to the same question about how to 'count' RC aircraft and drones. Right now, it's a felony to interfere with the operations of any aircraft. But is a quadcopter/drone an aircraft? What about an RC plane? How big can it be before it counts? Right now, 14 CFR 107 only covers commercial UAS uses and 14 CRF 91 only covers full sized, manned aircraft. Not only do these two parts of the FAA regs not mix, parts are actively incompatible since, for example, an aircraft must stay 1000 feet ABOVE the tallest obstacle within 2000 lateral feet (when over 'congested areas'), and a part 107 regulated drone must stay BELOW 400 feet above the immediate uppermost portion of an obstacle or structure within 400 lateral feet. Furthermore, neither of these regulations cover hobby flying, except perhaps that drones are generally prohibited from flying more than 400 feet above ground level.

zupzupper 6y ago
Actually quadcopters/drones/fixed wing, RC aircraft et. al. are "aircraft" per the FAA. 14 CFR 91 defines both, here's the FAA interpretation of 14 CFR 91, which they also produced to explain why they were allowed to further regulate RC aircraft operations outside of the boundaries set by congress in the FAA FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. https://www.faa.gov/uas/educational_users/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf https://www.faa.gov/uas/educational_users/media/model_aircra... Basically the FAA took the stance that all these things are "aircraft" and the same sets of rules apply to their operation. Shooting down or at a drone, or RC aircraft has always violated the same set of laws, perpetrators just haven't yet been prosecuted for it yet.

koheripbal 6y ago

> "...charges of criminal damage to property and reckless discharge of a weapon within city limits." ...doesn't seem like we need specific laws here for drones. Shooting someone's property with a deadly weapon will break serious laws in almost all jurisdictions.

clairity 6y ago
it's pretty provocative on both sides. on one hand, flying camera scouting out private property and individuals. on the other, shooting and destroying private property. whose property (and privacy) rights should win? uncovering illegal activity is generally a societal good, but invasion of privacy is not. protecting privacy (and property) rights are a general societal good, but destroying others' property is not.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  > whose property (and privacy) rights should win? I’m of the opinion that they both violated each other’s rights and both should be punished.

petermcneeley 6y ago

I figured it out. He should have bought his own drone and interrupted the other drones flight path.

bitxbitxbitcoin 6y ago
Or become a falconer and have his bird "accidentally" take the drone down.

csense 6y ago

For me the biggest question is: If you don't want a drone on your property, but you don't know who owns the drone that's flying around on your land, what's the proper, lawful way for you to handle the situation? Also the article's really sketchy on facts of this specific case. What was the shooter's motive? Was the shooter an employee of the meat processing plant? If so, was the shooter acting on his own initiative, or was he ordered by his work superiors to shoot down the drone? (I've been playing the Switch re-release of Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney lately so these kinds of questions come to mind, haha.)