BHM's Homesteading & Self-Reliance Forum

Posting requires Registration and the use of Cookies-enabled browser


Go Back   BHM Forum > Self-Reliance & Preparedness > Firearms/Weapons

Firearms/Weapons Firearms or other weapons issues that do not have a dedicated board.
PLEASE NOTE: These boards are for discussion only. Offers to buy, sell, or trade anything are prohibited.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-31-2015, 06:09 PM
Jjr's Avatar
Jjr Male Jjr is offline
Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: NWLA
Posts: 836
Default Man Shoots Down Drone In Backyard

According to a number of different news reports a William Meredith shot an $1,800+ drone with his .12 gauge shotgun using number 8 bird shot, causing it to crash.

There are a number of conflicting statements. The drones owners says the drone was being used to take photo's of a friends house and the machine was flying at 300 feet. If true, I doubt any shotgun would have brought it down, so it seems obvious the owner is distorting the truth, if not outright lying.

Other people in the neighborhood saw the drone flying and were concerned about it use and invasion of their privacy.

Mr. Meredith's sixteen year old daughter sunbathing in their back yard inside a six foot privacy fence came in the house and reported the drone in their neighbors back yard hoovering at about ten feet looking under their (the neighbors) awning. Mr. Meredith said if the machine had been steadily flying he would not have take any action against it, but when it began hoovering over his daughters he fired on the drone, causing it to crash land in a field behind his house. He said, he did not know if the drone's owners were looking for something to steal, were viewing and/or videotaping his daughters, but that he expected to have privacy in his own backyard with the six foot privacy fence installed for that explicit purpose.

Police arrested Mr. Meredith for Criminal Mischief & Wanton Endangerment. He says he is considering legal action against the drones owners, and this case is far from over.

Personally, I agree with the home owner 100%. I don't even want an unknown drone of unknown origin over my property, and it better not drop down to ten feet and hoover, for it is most definitely looking for a place to have an accident. If I own the surface and subsurface below my property, I believe it goes without saying, I also own the air space above my property. Air vehicles use that space free of charge, and drones may be allowed that same access, but one dropping below a minimum ceiling of 500 feet, unless over their own property or experiencing mechanical failure, should be subject to criminal trespassing in my opinion.

I do realize there are some great benefits from using drones, just to mention a few: surveying storm damage, row crops, cattle & timber acreage, search & rescue efforts, and a host of other legitimate uses, but the recreational users need to fly over their own property, or go to a public place like a park or obtains an owners written permission to fly over private property below the 500 foot ceiling.

I do realize all users of drones do not have ulterior motives in mind, but I am not psychic or omniscient neither so I can not tell one from the other, but those who just enjoy fling their machines should also enjoy being able to see their machines fly. For the drone operator(s) who do/does not maintain a visual on his/their machine(s) other than for the momentary occasional tree or other fixed object I would suspicion they are less concerned with thrill of flying their machine than they are with spying for pleasure or profit.

Having told you how I feel about drones invading my personal space, how do the rest of you feel about drones over your property?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-31-2015, 08:25 PM
Mad_Professor Mad_Professor is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,728
Default

I think I'm shopping 3 1/2" 10 gauge goose/turkey guns.

Bet you could also make a jammer to nix the radio controls, but the FCC would be up your arse quick.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-01-2015, 12:24 AM
DavidOH's Avatar
DavidOH Male DavidOH is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Central, OH
Posts: 2,439
Default

I have to side with law enforcement. Shooting guns in the city is a violation.

" Merideth was charged with wanton endangerment and criminal mischief "

http://www.wdrb.com/story/29670583/u...ow-flight-path


Now if he had used a tennis ball cannon.....
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-01-2015, 12:25 AM
DavidOH's Avatar
DavidOH Male DavidOH is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Central, OH
Posts: 2,439
Talking Battle Botts 3D !

Here is another concept. Attack a drone with a drone.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-01-2015, 01:23 AM
Tim Horton's Avatar
Tim Horton Male Tim Horton is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Deep in the BC Bush
Posts: 5,820
Default

I'm surprised he was arrested... I could understand a ticket/summons for discharging a firearm in town..

The drone owner saying he was flying 300' high.. Most people are not good at judging how high an object is above the ground when they are a horizontal distance from the object... And a witness at a short horizontal distance saying the craft was lower than a known height (10' awning) is a dead give away...

The guy may deserve to pay a fine for shooting in town, but I agree that for every dime this costs him, he should get $100 from the drone owner..

My 2 cents..

PS.... There are air powered shot guns available... Hint, hint.....
__________________
Always fresh.
Keep your stick on the ice. Red Green
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-01-2015, 10:14 AM
Bearfootfarm's Avatar
Bearfootfarm Male Bearfootfarm is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Eastern North Carolina
Posts: 1,898
Default

Quote:
PS.... There are air powered shot guns available... Hint, hint.....
That would still be dangerous and illegal, and he really had no right to shoot it to begin with
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-01-2015, 12:09 PM
jvcstone jvcstone is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: North Central Texas
Posts: 1,794
Default

Quote:
and he really had no right to shoot it to begin with
I suppose a person has no right to shoot a home invader either. That is exactly what the idiots controlling the drone were doing--ignoring private property rights, and not only that, but videoing the guys sun bathing daughter.

I would do the same thing if I discovered a drone of any type hovering over my property obviously snooping on me, and my activities.

JVC
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-01-2015, 08:25 PM
Bearfootfarm's Avatar
Bearfootfarm Male Bearfootfarm is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Eastern North Carolina
Posts: 1,898
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jvcstone View Post
I suppose a person has no right to shoot a home invader either. That is exactly what the idiots controlling the drone were doing--ignoring private property rights, and not only that, but videoing the guys sun bathing daughter.

I would do the same thing if I discovered a drone of any type hovering over my property obviously snooping on me, and my activities.

JVC
That's the type of answer I'd expect from you.

This was not a "home invasion", and there's been no evidence presented to show where the camera was pointed

He had no right to shoot the drone, and his arrest confirms that.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-01-2015, 09:23 PM
Bones Bones is online now
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,469
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm View Post
That's the type of answer I'd expect from you.

This was not a "home invasion", and there's been no evidence presented to show where the camera was pointed

He had no right to shoot the drone, and his arrest confirms that.
Well then no need for a trial if simply being arrested confirms somebody did something wrong?
Lets just throw him in jail.

Public air space is classified as the 'navigable' airspace above 500 feet.

Not sure what country you live in sometimes.
__________________
" I void warranties"
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-01-2015, 10:15 PM
Bearfootfarm's Avatar
Bearfootfarm Male Bearfootfarm is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Eastern North Carolina
Posts: 1,898
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bones View Post
Well then no need for a trial if simply being arrested confirms somebody did something wrong?
Lets just throw him in jail.

Public air space is classified as the 'navigable' airspace above 500 feet.
He admitted he shot it down, and it's illegal to fire a gun where he lived.
How much confirmation do you think is needed?

"Public air space" has nothing to do with whether or not it's legal to shoot anything out of the air.

Quote:
Not sure what country you live in sometimes.
I live in a country where people used to have common sense, but that seems to be changing. You can't just start shooting at anything you don't like.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-02-2015, 12:25 AM
Bearfootfarm's Avatar
Bearfootfarm Male Bearfootfarm is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Eastern North Carolina
Posts: 1,898
Default

The shooter is facing felony charges for "criminal mischief" and "wanton endangerment", and it also appears he lied about the height of the drone:

http://www.opb.org/news/article/npr-...-kentucky-man/

Quote:
Police were called to the scene; Meredith now faces felony charges of wanton endangerment and criminal mischief, with a court date set for September.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...-than-alleged/

Quote:
According to the telemetry provided by David Boggs, the drone pilot, his aircraft was only in flight for barely two minutes before it was shot down. The data also shows that it was well over 200 feet above the ground before the fatal shots fired by William Merideth.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-02-2015, 06:27 PM
Mad_Professor Mad_Professor is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,728
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidOH View Post
I have to side with law enforcement. Shooting guns in the city is a violation.

" Merideth was charged with wanton endangerment and criminal mischief "

http://www.wdrb.com/story/29670583/u...ow-flight-path


Now if he had used a tennis ball cannon.....
Verses a civil rights violation coming nearly into your home?

Tell all the crooks , gangs, robbers, etc. about "shooting guns in the city is a violation". Coppers are not doing squat about that.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-02-2015, 06:30 PM
Mad_Professor Mad_Professor is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,728
Default

There should be an open season on drones flying over private property.

There should also be laws to prosecute drone owners who violate citizens privacy. Fines and jail time for repeat offenders.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-02-2015, 07:49 PM
jvcstone jvcstone is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: North Central Texas
Posts: 1,794
Default

let's see now, one article said the drone was well over 200 ft up, another says over 250 ft, and then 274 ft Seems to me that's one hellof a shot with #7 bird shot, basically straight up if the report is accurate. Would be interesting to know just how many pellets actually hit the drone--doubt that it could be more than one if the thing actually was up that high even with a full choked gun. Course it is still a bunch of he said, I say, and alleged info--nothing is reported as fact just yet.

Still, what has happened to this country where a person cannot even expect privacy in the confines of his back yard. Nice thing about not living in an urban area--no issues with popping off a few rounds out here.

JVC
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-02-2015, 10:34 PM
DavidOH's Avatar
DavidOH Male DavidOH is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Central, OH
Posts: 2,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad_Professor View Post
Verses a civil rights violation coming nearly into your home?

Tell all the crooks , gangs, robbers, etc. about "shooting guns in the city is a violation". Coppers are not doing squat about that.

Absolutely no evidence of any "civil rights" violation whatsoever !
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-03-2015, 12:15 AM
Jjr's Avatar
Jjr Male Jjr is offline
Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: NWLA
Posts: 836
Default

I have been doing more reading about drones and although there are few fast and hard rules about them and their operation. Most are recommendations at this point, other than the fact the FAA considers them an "Airplane" and shooting one down seems to be a big no-no.

Although California currently has a bill before their state legislature to allow the authorities to shoot one down for interring with any official actions. When the authorities deem them a nuisance, they can be shot down, but when the average citizens finds them trespassing on personal property, annoying, obnoxious, and an invasion of privacy the owner is to be identified and advised of our feelings and concern. If the owner does not comply with our wishes then we may proceed with contacting the police and/or other authorities, as per the suggested guidelines. I am sure the authorities will be a big assistance in these cases.

The unprofessional, borderline criminal element, or outright criminals who find drones and their use advantageous will find these suggestion hilarious. Actually upon further reflection, if Amazon gets their drone delivery service up and running without any problems, I can see drones becoming a big time criminal asset, flying in illegal drugs and other contraband substances under radar, making delivers or drops around the city to their marketers, with less personal interaction, fewer possibilities to be identified, so I can see drone use becoming an enormous useful tool to the criminal element.

But back to the original subject. Airplanes do not normally and routinely fly at low altitudes, although crop dusters and other similar activities are performed at much lower ceilings than normal, but these are businesses performing a service, not loaded with cameras and/or video surveillance scoping out the backyard family life.

Drones as I said earlier can certainly perform many varied and valuable business and personal services both, but I feel the potential is much greater for snooping and intrusion into the lives of the average citizen on a daily basis from both businesses and individual alike with the proliferation in the numbers of drones and their limited purview, other than it seems they are to be protected with the unlimited power of the Federal Government in every possible manner. Probably because they intend to use them likewise.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-03-2015, 03:27 AM
Kachad Male Kachad is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: MN
Posts: 1,472
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jjr View Post
Having told you how I feel about drones invading my personal space, how do the rest of you feel about drones over your property?
Definitely don't want them flying over my property without permission.

My full time residence is in a smaller town, 3600 population. We have a privacy fence as well. I would not be running into the house, grabbing a shotgun, and come out blasting. Discharging firearms in the backyard is definitely illegal, and something that I agree with. I wouldn't want my neighbors doing it, so I certainly would abide by the law - heck, Golden Rule thing.

My part time residence is the land that I'm working on to build the homestead. I don't know the range of these things, but the public gravel road is bout .25 miles from my work\trailer site. Closest neighbors are .75 miles away. There I could certainly shoot at it, but I think I would hop in the jeep and investigate the surrounding area a bit to see if I could find out who's operating it.

I consider it an invasion of privacy and don't equate it with a home intrusion. I guess, in the end, I would like to think the best solution would be to find out who it was, and have a discussion.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-03-2015, 11:59 AM
Bones Bones is online now
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,469
Default

The only danger from #7 birdshot when shot in the air is minimal. You would have to be looking up when it came down and have it hit you the eye and it would not kill you. Much like going outside in a hail storm.
__________________
" I void warranties"
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-03-2015, 12:42 PM
Bearfootfarm's Avatar
Bearfootfarm Male Bearfootfarm is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Eastern North Carolina
Posts: 1,898
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jvcstone View Post
let's see now, one article said the drone was well over 200 ft up, another says over 250 ft, and then 274 ft Seems to me that's one hellof a shot with #7 bird shot, basically straight up if the report is accurate. Would be interesting to know just how many pellets actually hit the drone--doubt that it could be more than one if the thing actually was up that high even with a full choked gun. Course it is still a bunch of he said, I say, and alleged info--nothing is reported as fact just yet.

Still, what has happened to this country where a person cannot even expect privacy in the confines of his back yard. Nice thing about not living in an urban area--no issues with popping off a few rounds out here.

JVC
How do you know what shot size he used?
None of the reports mentioned "#7 bird shot"

He also fired 3 rounds before it came down

I suspect one or two pellets to a plastic propeller is all that would be needed to throw the balance off enough to bring it down.

The telemetry from the flight was recorded, so that's not just based on what "someone said", like all your claims so far.

The drone operator wasn't charged with anything.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-03-2015, 12:45 PM
Tim Horton's Avatar
Tim Horton Male Tim Horton is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Deep in the BC Bush
Posts: 5,820
Default

I read yet another article about this.. It had some to say about the FAA laws.. Seems there is very little and vague federal rules about drones..

Seems state regulations are equally as vague and very much different from state to state...

To me this seems to have moved more toward intent to punish the use of the gun... Also to me it seems obvious to use the drone to look under a canopy tells volumes about the height of the craft and intent.. I hope the guy can successfully pursue some amendment rights from that prospective... For instance... A drone could be used to plan a robbery as easily as to spy on sun bathers....

I've wondered how well a "net gun" would work in a case like this ?? There are versions of net guns in different sizes intended for animals as well as police use...
__________________
Always fresh.
Keep your stick on the ice. Red Green
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -2. The time now is 05:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 1996 to Present. Backwoods Home Magazine, Inc.