3 ms·
Destruction of property is destruction of property. The logic behind this seems to imply that you could legally take steps to crash a manned helicopter merely b
by downandout 12y ago
Destruction of property is destruction of property. The logic behind this seems to imply that you could legally take steps to crash a manned helicopter merely because it was flying over your property. That is almost certainly not the case.
Another example: Some of the wealthiest people in California live on a street called La Jolla Farms Rd. (supermarket magnate Ron Burkle owns a 58,000 sq ft home there). One of the hallmarks of living on this street is that hang and paragliders taking off from the La Jolla Gliderport fly over these homes constantly during the day - many with cameras. Would it be legal to take any of them down? My guess is you would be charged with attempted murder.
- cge 12y agoHot air balloons frequently fly over Rancho Santa Fe nearby, as well. Local ordinances are such that most if not all of them are doing so illegally, if I recall correctly, but that still doesn't mean shooting them down would be legal.
- niels_olson 12y agoPrivate property owners generally only have airspace rights in so far as "enjoyment". That, is they can shoot fireworks, have balloons, loft their own drones, etc. Unless a pilot of an aircaft (including balloons, etc) is somehow being intentionally disruptive (e.g., hovering their helicopter over an ex-girlfriend's birthday party), they have a higher obligation to safe flight. And if that means overflying Coral Reef Ranch, Gwendolyn Sontheim Meyer's show ponies are just going to have to deal with it.
- girvo 12y agoI feel there is a large difference between disabling a drone, and killing a human being. That's a bit of a disingenuous argument in my opinion.
- downandout 12y agoMy point was that I can guarantee that the law doesn't make that distinction - maybe it will in the future, but not today. Taking out flying objects is illegal.