Originally Posted by
porcia83
And you don't? lol I base what I say on what I read in the news about that instant story, not what I think the law is or should be ( invasion of privacy, trespassing, endangering structures?? etc). So far, I'm not wrong on the fact that the shooter broke the law and was arrested. That's fact. And it seems like some at least agree with me that the quad pilot acted poorly, not a great idea to fly over someone's house (but again, doesn't appear to be illegal). Now we'll see if the charges stick on the shooter. The story says nothing about a working camera capturing video, or that the quad pilot did anything wrong. What might happen to both of them is up in the air though, but I would like to know how the charges pan out.
My opinion is there won't be any lawsuits, everyone always mentioning suing right away...then the reality of that process sets in when the find out the time and costs of that. Of the two though...guess who has the better case from a legal standpoint on recovering damages? Hint: not the dude with the gun.
All a moot point if the quad pilot and the shooter both used some common sense.
I think you may have misinterpreted my posts. My argument is philosophically based...not what is the sad facts of the whacked world we now live in...and yes my mind is made up, so to speak, because the alternative resigns itself to a continued debasing of our individual self reliance in trade for security that can
only be metered by those that are charged with taking care of us... Not interested in a life that depends wholly on how others look out for my needs...but sadly I do realize I am a dinosaur in todays world.
FWIW I don't think it has been said, but bird shot posses little risk to anyone or anything other than the target as it appears to have been used in this case... And that's speaking from first hand experience. IMO the FPV probably presented more risk...and just because there is no law against what the operators have done doesn't make it right...well unless your metric is only what is subjectively applied by laws that are less than adequate all too often.