16 ms·

Man shoots downs neighbor’s hexacopter

110 points by nkurz 11y ago

cm2187 11y ago
That being said, drones are a pretty nice toy for stalkers. Not sure this particular story qualifies but it will lead to some grudge between neighbours.
- jsmthrowaway 11y ago
  Have you ever seen a drone? They sound like an angry hornet's nest and fly about 20 minutes. The stalker stuff is pure FUD, promulgated by people who are afraid of them based on a hypothetical that has to date never happened. Once. Read every story that claims it has and think hard.
  - cm2187 11y ago
    That sounds like a "no one will ever need more than 1MB of RAM" statement. Of course consumer drones will get better.
  - m4x 11y ago
    Doesn't the noise make it more likely to cause a grudge between neighbors? If it was quiet enough to go undetected then the neighbor would never know or care about the UAVs presence. I have been buzzed by a curious neighbor before and it was unsettling and extremely rude (it also spooked our livestock and could have cost my parents a lot of money) Don't assume the people around you are happy to have UAVs flying near or above them or their property, regardless of whether the UAV is being used for stalking/surveillance. For one thing, they can't know for sure what it's being used for, and even if they're confident it isn't conducting surveillance it is generally seen as rude at best to invade somebody's privacy.
    - jsmthrowaway 11y ago
      > Don't assume the people around you are happy to have UAVs flying near or above them or their property, When I'm flying in public, I approach people who wander in to what I think of as a "zone" and explain what's going on. With absolutely zero exceptions across several hundred people, the reaction has been positive. Nearly everyone has a load of questions to ask me about aerial photography and drones in general; one woman in her 60s spent half an hour sitting next to me just amazed at the technology, often just watching me fly for minutes at a time, and telling me about her grandson in the Air Force. In over two thousand hours of flying, I've had precisely one negative experience: a contract security guard at Wind River Systems in Alameda came up to me and threatened to have me arrested on the basis that I was trespassing on Wind River property, even though the specific space is Alameda public shoreline and I had done research on this beforehand. He got in my face and shouted expletives at me, no matter how much I attempted to defuse the situation. To be honest, based on comments like yours (and many more before it), I expected when I got in to this hobby to have many more experiences like it. That hasn't happened. I've found that doing your research, not being stupid, and being open and willing to talk to people instead of confrontational and falling back on the rules ("I'm permitted to be here" instead of "hey, is it okay with you that I'm flying nearby?") has brought about a positive interaction without fail. Countless people have asked to see my work: once while flying at Berkeley Marina, an impromptu show developed from a few sailors asking to see their vessel from above. Your assertion about people suffers from confirmation bias. You feel that way, so you think everyone feels that way. In my extensive experience operating unmanned vehicles, I regret to inform you that you are in the tiniest of minorities. I work very hard to maintain a good positive image for the hobby, which is why I'm never rude to someone. You have to return that courtesy and open a line of dialogue with me if I'm making you uncomfortable, because no matter how hard I work, I will occasionally make mistakes. The typical expectation of privacy by most folks is completely flawed, by the way, including by your comment, but I've learned that there's no path toward arriving at any sort of agreement on that point. Just as you have certain things you do not want me to assume (though you're assuming I assume them), I have a few to return to you: simply because there are people with more money than common sense who buy drones and harass people and disrupt safety with them, don't assume anyone you see operating a drone is one of them. Most pilots I know are very open and more than happy to talk to you -- trust me, someone showing interest and talking to you is sometimes the best part of any hobby because it's a chance to meet new people.
  - Ma8ee 11y ago
    I'm not at all comfortable with drones flying outside the windows of my apartment. I don't know if they carry cameras or not and I value being able to make my Saturdays no-pants day. And the sound is really annoying.
  - CPLX 11y ago
    > The stalker stuff is pure FUD, promulgated by people who are afraid of them based on a hypothetical that has to date never happened. Once. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paparazzi-take-to-the-skies-to-pursue-stars-with-drones/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paparazzi-take-to-the-skies-to-p...
  - dirktheman 11y ago
    Exactly. I live in The Netherlands, we are going to pass a bill that puts massive restrictions on flying drones on July 1st. I fly drones. I have yet to encounter a drone other than my own 'in the wild'.
  - nimblegorilla 11y ago
    Some drones are quiet: http://www.micro-drone.co.uk/ http://www.micro-drone.co.uk/
carlisle_ 11y ago
Under the same circumstances there is no way I could ever be as civil as that dude, so major props to him. The most alarming part of the whole thing: >This is the third time discharge from your firearms has hit our house and property. The first incident left a bullet hole in the door by our garage. I don't even know what to say, this guy obviously is reckless and irresponsible about how he uses his guns.
- GigabyteCoin 11y ago
  If that happened in Canada you would be in jail after the first offence. I know a buddy who owns a gun, and he is only allowed to discharge it at a gun range. And he is only allowed to carry his gun on his person if he is on the way to the gun range.
  - justin66 11y ago
    In Modesto, CA unlawful discharge of a firearm (firing into a neighbor's yard because you believe the CIA is flying a surveillance drone there probably qualifies) might land you in jail as well. The victim didn't call the police.
    - 2muchcoffeeman 11y ago
      That just raises more questions. Forgive me, I'm Australian. Why, after having live fire arms discharged in your direction (on 3 separate occasions) did the victim NOT call the police? And why after going to small claims court, was the shooter not brought up on this? The shooter doesn't appear to have disputed the claim that he shot in the direction of someone else's property.
      - spiritplumber 11y ago
        I wouldn't call the American police on a burglar, if I caught him. They have too high a chance of being insane and dangerous, and someone might get shot even if the situation has settled, and it might even be me. (This has, in fact, happened. Turns out the guy didn't know I was home and just wanted a place to sleep, so I put him up in the living room on an air bed and told him to take a shower before leaving)
LoSboccacc 11y ago
Man with shotgun drop neighboor drone, no battling drones involved Discover this little secret about shotgun drones
mullingitover 11y ago
> This is the third time discharge from your firearms has hit our house and property. The first incident left a bullet hole in the door by our garage. The second incident occurred last Thanksgiving when birdshot from your skeet shooting activities rained into our backyard. The third, of course, being what we're currently discussing. I'm fascinated that this isn't grounds for immediate arrest and, after your stint of several months or years in prison, permanent loss of your right to own firearms. What a country we live in.
- baddox 11y ago
  It seems pretty clear that the police were never made aware of the gunshots. I doubt it is legal to shoot your neighbor's house anywhere in this country.
  - cyorir 11y ago
    Perhaps it's not legal, but that doesn't necessarily mean the police will act. Depending on where it is, rural police may be less willing to follow up on complaints if the suspect is armed (lack of manpower compared to urban counterparts, and greater distance to fire station, hospital etc. in case something happens). They'll be less likely to act if the offence is minor; a bullet hitting a window or door would probably only lead to a small or medium fine.
    - yrro 11y ago
      > a bullet hitting a window or door would probably only lead to a small or medium fine. To me, this sounds completely crazy. If a person was standing by the door or window they could have been injured or killed!
      - hullo 11y ago
        But, freedom!
      - grkvlt 11y ago
        The operative words here are could have been - nobody was injured or killed. Of course, if that did happen, then the usual consequences of injuring or killing someone with a firearm ensue. The problem is, there are many things that could injure someone, and you cannot simply make them all illegal, otherwise driving would be an offence. However, note that negligence is probably citeable as a factor in some of these cases, so perhaps that is the route to go down?
Intermernet 11y ago
"I thought it was a CIA surveillance device." What sort of reasoning is that to fire a shotgun at a drone? If it was a CIA device he'd be up for a whole lot more than $850. I don't think the CIA take you to Small Claims.
- jen729w 11y ago
  What possesses some dude out in the sticks to think the CIA might be remotely interested in him, I'll never know.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    Snowden?
    - shiggerino 11y ago
      Anyone legitimately targeted by the intelligence community should be intelligent enough not to try to beat them in a fire fight. This man is obviously either mentally ill or just takes pleasure in ruining things for other people. Probably the latter, unless he thought the door by their garage was a secret portal for CIA agents to travel through.
      - DanBC 11y ago
        Snowden has made many people aware that they're being surveilled all the time. CIA SURVEILLANCE DRONES isn't the most extreme conspiracy theory. It's interesting that you use mental illness to describe violent behaviour you don't understand. That kind of stigmatising use of language contributes to a culture where shooting and killing the mentally ill is common. (About 500 people with mental health problems are shot and killed by police in the US each year. http://tacreports.org/storage/documents/2013-justifiable-homicides.pdf http://tacreports.org/storage/documents/2013-justifiable-hom...
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
mirimir 11y ago
> Manned aircraft, even quite low-flying ones, are not trespassers — at least so long as they comply with FAA rules on overflights, which usually means 500 feet or higher. Helicopters can go even lower without trespassing so long as they are operating in a safe manner. As a result, unless the drone is quite low, there may not be an actionable trespass at all. And if there is no trespass there may be no intrusion justifying self-help. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/10/03/self-defense-against-overflying-drones/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014... Edit: Nolo has a page about the issue: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-do-when-your-neighbor-has-drone.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-do-when-your-nei...
- omginternets 11y ago
  I'm fairly certain that drones don't qualify as manned aircraft. ;) Moreover, my understanding is that there's a big gap in case-law concerning drone use. It's really a shame that this trigger-happy hick didn't take the drone case to court, as he might have made a meaningful contribution to the U.S. justice system by doing so.
  - mirimir 11y ago
    Yes, the legal status of drones is unclear. And there's not much case law. This should have been a clear case, given that the downed drone was reportedly never over the neighbor's property. But maybe the trigger-happy family appreciated this fact, and just wanted to make a statement. I certainly don't like the idea of being surveilled. And it's not just cameras. Drones can easily carry compact equipment for LAN hacking[0] or exfiltrating key material.[1] But for those applications, one would need to land the drone in a suitable location. [0] http://www.securitytube.net/groups?operation=view&groupId=9 http://www.securitytube.net/groups?operation=view&groupId=9 [1] https://www.tau.ac.il/~tromer/radioexp/ https://www.tau.ac.il/~tromer/radioexp/
- lambdaelite 11y ago
  Aren't recreational drones limited by a 400ft ceiling?
lifeformed 11y ago
The title made this sound like a far more exciting duel, with shotguns mounted on competing drones. "Rural drone shotgun battle".
ck2 11y ago
Shooting weapons in the air without knowing what people are around and what exactly you are aiming at should be considered mental illness or at a minimum felony operation of a weapon and their guns should be seized. Seriously, if you a "fan of gun" and want guns to be legal, you need to have strict rules or people think of them as toys.
- ghshephard 11y ago
  Well, I agree with you, but, in all fairness, the individual did know exactly what he was shooting - a drone. And he took it out in one shot.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    > > This is the third time discharge from your firearms has hit our house and property. The first incident left a bullet hole in the door by our garage. The second incident occurred last Thanksgiving when birdshot from your skeet shooting activities rained into our backyard. The third, of course, being what we're currently discussing.
  - adekok 11y ago
    And the shotgun pellets land... where? What's his backstop? Firing guns into the air means that the bullets come down. And they can hurt people.
    - bottled_poe 11y ago
      Wha..?! Next you'll be telling me that burning coal has unseen consequences.
    - monochromatic 11y ago
      Birdshot is fired into the air when hunting birds. It loses its energy very quickly and should be moving slowly enough not to cause damage when it lands (unless maybe a pellet hits you in the eyeball or something). Pistol and rifle bullets are another story entirely.
    - 11y ago
gabeio 11y ago
I guess drone delivery services are going to be out of the question for rural areas unless they are really flying high.
ryandrake 11y ago
Maybe this comes from a rural up-bringing, but one of the top rules on my list is "Don't mess with crazy neighbors with guns". So, he shot down your toy. Don't start an E-mail conversation with him! Don't call the police on him. Next thing you know it'll be your dog instead of your drone, or worse. Just pack up the pieces and be glad it was something replaceable. I can't believe this guy voluntarily contacted (and then sued) someone who has demonstrated no reservations about shooting his house.
- gluxon 11y ago
  > "I didn't contest what he said, as I didn't want to get argumentative with a guy with a shotgun," Joe said. "So I went back to my place [and] inspected it." The person in the article did mention arguing on site was a bad idea. I think he was right to stand up for his property rights through email later when he was in his house and significantly more safe in comparison. History has taught us that appeasing an aggressor is generally a bad idea for the long term.
- megablast 11y ago
  Wow, you are something. As soon as someone has a gun, they are above the law in your book?
  - psykovsky 11y ago
    Immagine what he will do when a police officer tells him to do something stupid...
  - cyorir 11y ago
    No one should be above the law, but the parent is right that safety concerns also come into play. In this case the damage to the drone was ~$700. Provoking someone who has already shown a disregard for your property could mean that person will do more damage to your property, or could threaten harm or damage to you. In this case, the legal concern of getting that $700 compensation may be trivial compared to the safety concern.
  - icebraining 11y ago

110 points by nkurz 11y ago

That being said, drones are a pretty nice toy for stalkers. Not sure this particular story qualifies but it will lead to some grudge between neighbours.

jsmthrowaway 11y ago
Have you ever seen a drone? They sound like an angry hornet's nest and fly about 20 minutes. The stalker stuff is pure FUD, promulgated by people who are afraid of them based on a hypothetical that has to date never happened. Once. Read every story that claims it has and think hard.
- cm2187 11y ago
  That sounds like a "no one will ever need more than 1MB of RAM" statement. Of course consumer drones will get better.
- m4x 11y ago
  Doesn't the noise make it more likely to cause a grudge between neighbors? If it was quiet enough to go undetected then the neighbor would never know or care about the UAVs presence. I have been buzzed by a curious neighbor before and it was unsettling and extremely rude (it also spooked our livestock and could have cost my parents a lot of money) Don't assume the people around you are happy to have UAVs flying near or above them or their property, regardless of whether the UAV is being used for stalking/surveillance. For one thing, they can't know for sure what it's being used for, and even if they're confident it isn't conducting surveillance it is generally seen as rude at best to invade somebody's privacy.
  - jsmthrowaway 11y ago
    > Don't assume the people around you are happy to have UAVs flying near or above them or their property, When I'm flying in public, I approach people who wander in to what I think of as a "zone" and explain what's going on. With absolutely zero exceptions across several hundred people, the reaction has been positive. Nearly everyone has a load of questions to ask me about aerial photography and drones in general; one woman in her 60s spent half an hour sitting next to me just amazed at the technology, often just watching me fly for minutes at a time, and telling me about her grandson in the Air Force. In over two thousand hours of flying, I've had precisely one negative experience: a contract security guard at Wind River Systems in Alameda came up to me and threatened to have me arrested on the basis that I was trespassing on Wind River property, even though the specific space is Alameda public shoreline and I had done research on this beforehand. He got in my face and shouted expletives at me, no matter how much I attempted to defuse the situation. To be honest, based on comments like yours (and many more before it), I expected when I got in to this hobby to have many more experiences like it. That hasn't happened. I've found that doing your research, not being stupid, and being open and willing to talk to people instead of confrontational and falling back on the rules ("I'm permitted to be here" instead of "hey, is it okay with you that I'm flying nearby?") has brought about a positive interaction without fail. Countless people have asked to see my work: once while flying at Berkeley Marina, an impromptu show developed from a few sailors asking to see their vessel from above. Your assertion about people suffers from confirmation bias. You feel that way, so you think everyone feels that way. In my extensive experience operating unmanned vehicles, I regret to inform you that you are in the tiniest of minorities. I work very hard to maintain a good positive image for the hobby, which is why I'm never rude to someone. You have to return that courtesy and open a line of dialogue with me if I'm making you uncomfortable, because no matter how hard I work, I will occasionally make mistakes. The typical expectation of privacy by most folks is completely flawed, by the way, including by your comment, but I've learned that there's no path toward arriving at any sort of agreement on that point. Just as you have certain things you do not want me to assume (though you're assuming I assume them), I have a few to return to you: simply because there are people with more money than common sense who buy drones and harass people and disrupt safety with them, don't assume anyone you see operating a drone is one of them. Most pilots I know are very open and more than happy to talk to you -- trust me, someone showing interest and talking to you is sometimes the best part of any hobby because it's a chance to meet new people.
- Ma8ee 11y ago
  I'm not at all comfortable with drones flying outside the windows of my apartment. I don't know if they carry cameras or not and I value being able to make my Saturdays no-pants day. And the sound is really annoying.
- CPLX 11y ago
  > The stalker stuff is pure FUD, promulgated by people who are afraid of them based on a hypothetical that has to date never happened. Once. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paparazzi-take-to-the-skies-to-pursue-stars-with-drones/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paparazzi-take-to-the-skies-to-p...
- dirktheman 11y ago
  Exactly. I live in The Netherlands, we are going to pass a bill that puts massive restrictions on flying drones on July 1st. I fly drones. I have yet to encounter a drone other than my own 'in the wild'.
- nimblegorilla 11y ago
  Some drones are quiet: http://www.micro-drone.co.uk/ http://www.micro-drone.co.uk/

carlisle_ 11y ago

Under the same circumstances there is no way I could ever be as civil as that dude, so major props to him. The most alarming part of the whole thing: >This is the third time discharge from your firearms has hit our house and property. The first incident left a bullet hole in the door by our garage. I don't even know what to say, this guy obviously is reckless and irresponsible about how he uses his guns.

GigabyteCoin 11y ago
If that happened in Canada you would be in jail after the first offence. I know a buddy who owns a gun, and he is only allowed to discharge it at a gun range. And he is only allowed to carry his gun on his person if he is on the way to the gun range.
- justin66 11y ago
  In Modesto, CA unlawful discharge of a firearm (firing into a neighbor's yard because you believe the CIA is flying a surveillance drone there probably qualifies) might land you in jail as well. The victim didn't call the police.
  - 2muchcoffeeman 11y ago
    That just raises more questions. Forgive me, I'm Australian. Why, after having live fire arms discharged in your direction (on 3 separate occasions) did the victim NOT call the police? And why after going to small claims court, was the shooter not brought up on this? The shooter doesn't appear to have disputed the claim that he shot in the direction of someone else's property.
    - spiritplumber 11y ago
      I wouldn't call the American police on a burglar, if I caught him. They have too high a chance of being insane and dangerous, and someone might get shot even if the situation has settled, and it might even be me. (This has, in fact, happened. Turns out the guy didn't know I was home and just wanted a place to sleep, so I put him up in the living room on an air bed and told him to take a shower before leaving)

LoSboccacc 11y ago

Man with shotgun drop neighboor drone, no battling drones involved Discover this little secret about shotgun drones

mullingitover 11y ago

> This is the third time discharge from your firearms has hit our house and property. The first incident left a bullet hole in the door by our garage. The second incident occurred last Thanksgiving when birdshot from your skeet shooting activities rained into our backyard. The third, of course, being what we're currently discussing. I'm fascinated that this isn't grounds for immediate arrest and, after your stint of several months or years in prison, permanent loss of your right to own firearms. What a country we live in.

baddox 11y ago
It seems pretty clear that the police were never made aware of the gunshots. I doubt it is legal to shoot your neighbor's house anywhere in this country.
- cyorir 11y ago
  Perhaps it's not legal, but that doesn't necessarily mean the police will act. Depending on where it is, rural police may be less willing to follow up on complaints if the suspect is armed (lack of manpower compared to urban counterparts, and greater distance to fire station, hospital etc. in case something happens). They'll be less likely to act if the offence is minor; a bullet hitting a window or door would probably only lead to a small or medium fine.
  - yrro 11y ago
    > a bullet hitting a window or door would probably only lead to a small or medium fine. To me, this sounds completely crazy. If a person was standing by the door or window they could have been injured or killed!
    - hullo 11y ago
      But, freedom!
    - grkvlt 11y ago
      The operative words here are could have been - nobody was injured or killed. Of course, if that did happen, then the usual consequences of injuring or killing someone with a firearm ensue. The problem is, there are many things that could injure someone, and you cannot simply make them all illegal, otherwise driving would be an offence. However, note that negligence is probably citeable as a factor in some of these cases, so perhaps that is the route to go down?

Intermernet 11y ago

"I thought it was a CIA surveillance device." What sort of reasoning is that to fire a shotgun at a drone? If it was a CIA device he'd be up for a whole lot more than $850. I don't think the CIA take you to Small Claims.

jen729w 11y ago
What possesses some dude out in the sticks to think the CIA might be remotely interested in him, I'll never know.
- DanBC 11y ago
  Snowden?
  - shiggerino 11y ago
    Anyone legitimately targeted by the intelligence community should be intelligent enough not to try to beat them in a fire fight. This man is obviously either mentally ill or just takes pleasure in ruining things for other people. Probably the latter, unless he thought the door by their garage was a secret portal for CIA agents to travel through.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      Snowden has made many people aware that they're being surveilled all the time. CIA SURVEILLANCE DRONES isn't the most extreme conspiracy theory. It's interesting that you use mental illness to describe violent behaviour you don't understand. That kind of stigmatising use of language contributes to a culture where shooting and killing the mentally ill is common. (About 500 people with mental health problems are shot and killed by police in the US each year. http://tacreports.org/storage/documents/2013-justifiable-homicides.pdf http://tacreports.org/storage/documents/2013-justifiable-hom...
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]

mirimir 11y ago

> Manned aircraft, even quite low-flying ones, are not trespassers — at least so long as they comply with FAA rules on overflights, which usually means 500 feet or higher. Helicopters can go even lower without trespassing so long as they are operating in a safe manner. As a result, unless the drone is quite low, there may not be an actionable trespass at all. And if there is no trespass there may be no intrusion justifying self-help. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/10/03/self-defense-against-overflying-drones/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014... Edit: Nolo has a page about the issue: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-do-when-your-neighbor-has-drone.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-do-when-your-nei...

omginternets 11y ago
I'm fairly certain that drones don't qualify as manned aircraft. ;) Moreover, my understanding is that there's a big gap in case-law concerning drone use. It's really a shame that this trigger-happy hick didn't take the drone case to court, as he might have made a meaningful contribution to the U.S. justice system by doing so.
- mirimir 11y ago
  Yes, the legal status of drones is unclear. And there's not much case law. This should have been a clear case, given that the downed drone was reportedly never over the neighbor's property. But maybe the trigger-happy family appreciated this fact, and just wanted to make a statement. I certainly don't like the idea of being surveilled. And it's not just cameras. Drones can easily carry compact equipment for LAN hacking[0] or exfiltrating key material.[1] But for those applications, one would need to land the drone in a suitable location. [0] http://www.securitytube.net/groups?operation=view&groupId=9 http://www.securitytube.net/groups?operation=view&groupId=9 [1] https://www.tau.ac.il/~tromer/radioexp/ https://www.tau.ac.il/~tromer/radioexp/
lambdaelite 11y ago
Aren't recreational drones limited by a 400ft ceiling?

lifeformed 11y ago

The title made this sound like a far more exciting duel, with shotguns mounted on competing drones. "Rural drone shotgun battle".

ck2 11y ago

Shooting weapons in the air without knowing what people are around and what exactly you are aiming at should be considered mental illness or at a minimum felony operation of a weapon and their guns should be seized. Seriously, if you a "fan of gun" and want guns to be legal, you need to have strict rules or people think of them as toys.

ghshephard 11y ago
Well, I agree with you, but, in all fairness, the individual did know exactly what he was shooting - a drone. And he took it out in one shot.
- DanBC 11y ago
  > > This is the third time discharge from your firearms has hit our house and property. The first incident left a bullet hole in the door by our garage. The second incident occurred last Thanksgiving when birdshot from your skeet shooting activities rained into our backyard. The third, of course, being what we're currently discussing.
- adekok 11y ago
  And the shotgun pellets land... where? What's his backstop? Firing guns into the air means that the bullets come down. And they can hurt people.
  - bottled_poe 11y ago
    Wha..?! Next you'll be telling me that burning coal has unseen consequences.
  - monochromatic 11y ago
    Birdshot is fired into the air when hunting birds. It loses its energy very quickly and should be moving slowly enough not to cause damage when it lands (unless maybe a pellet hits you in the eyeball or something). Pistol and rifle bullets are another story entirely.
  - 11y ago

gabeio 11y ago

I guess drone delivery services are going to be out of the question for rural areas unless they are really flying high.

ryandrake 11y ago

Maybe this comes from a rural up-bringing, but one of the top rules on my list is "Don't mess with crazy neighbors with guns". So, he shot down your toy. Don't start an E-mail conversation with him! Don't call the police on him. Next thing you know it'll be your dog instead of your drone, or worse. Just pack up the pieces and be glad it was something replaceable. I can't believe this guy voluntarily contacted (and then sued) someone who has demonstrated no reservations about shooting his house.

gluxon 11y ago
> "I didn't contest what he said, as I didn't want to get argumentative with a guy with a shotgun," Joe said. "So I went back to my place [and] inspected it." The person in the article did mention arguing on site was a bad idea. I think he was right to stand up for his property rights through email later when he was in his house and significantly more safe in comparison. History has taught us that appeasing an aggressor is generally a bad idea for the long term.
megablast 11y ago
Wow, you are something. As soon as someone has a gun, they are above the law in your book?
- psykovsky 11y ago
  Immagine what he will do when a police officer tells him to do something stupid...
- cyorir 11y ago
  No one should be above the law, but the parent is right that safety concerns also come into play. In this case the damage to the drone was ~$700. Provoking someone who has already shown a disregard for your property could mean that person will do more damage to your property, or could threaten harm or damage to you. In this case, the legal concern of getting that $700 compensation may be trivial compared to the safety concern.
- icebraining 11y ago