Originally Posted by radioman (Post 12077309)

not according to uncle joe biden gees guys it was a shotgun he shot in the air its buckshot which is small lead b-bs and it spreads out its not like a 55gr bullet

Originally Posted by HoundDog (Post 12077640)

Kentucky man shoots down drone hovering over his backyard and now charged with recules endangerment and other stuff.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ken...ard/ar-AAdGg2x

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot (Post 12077423)

It's not illegal to shoot a shotgun into the air. You cannot shoot birds out of the air without shooting a shotgun into the air. However, it is illegal to shoot them in most urban areas.

Originally Posted by littlecrankshaf (Post 12077769)

After reading that, I think the man is getting railroaded by yet another out of control Law enforcement agency. He seemed to have the where-with-all to select the right ammo and took very reasonable action. It's a shame it will cost him to defend his rights...

Originally Posted by FLAPHappy (Post 12077797)

LCS: He just might prove his point in Court. The drone operator violated his Property Rights, gave No Permission to fly over his house, and second, it was Invasion of his Privacy. If he wins the lawsuit, and he just might, he may then counter sue the idiot that caused him undue distress, violation of Privacy, Trespassing, and his time. He may just make some money, more Power to em. The drone operator is an idiot , and not flying his aircraft within the FAA Rules and the AMA Suggestions. This is the exact same point of this Thread.

Originally Posted by littlecrankshaf (Post 12077810)

I hope he recovers his costs and added punitive...but it would be better if none of that was necessary. I hope info surfaces on the ultimate outcome. It really is a shame so many resources are wasted on such silliness. FWIW I am not sure what FAA rules were violated and AMA's suggestions seem less than relevant in such civil matters.

Originally Posted by FLAPHappy (Post 12077820)

Flying over the guy's house under 400Ft AGL. I think that is the rule, endangering structures, and people for no reason. Again it was an Invasion of Privacy

Originally Posted by littlecrankshaf (Post 12077769)

After reading that, I think the man is getting railroaded by yet another out of control Law enforcement agency. He seemed to have the where-with-all to select the right ammo and took very reasonable action. It's a shame it will cost him to defend his rights...

Originally Posted by FLAPHappy (Post 12077797)

LCS: He just might prove his point in Court. The drone operator violated his Property Rights, gave No Permission to fly over his house, and second, it was Invasion of his Privacy. If he wins the lawsuit, and he just might, he may then counter sue the idiot that caused him undue distress, violation of Privacy, Trespassing, and his time. He may just make some money, more Power to em. The drone operator is an idiot , and not flying his aircraft within the FAA Rules and the AMA Suggestions. This is the exact same point of this Thread.

Originally Posted by littlecrankshaf (Post 12077810)

I hope he recovers his costs and added punitive...but it would be better if none of that was necessary. I hope info surfaces on the ultimate outcome. It really is a shame so many resources are wasted on such silliness. FWIW I am not sure what FAA rules were violated and AMA's suggestions seem less than relevant in such civil matters.

Originally Posted by FLAPHappy (Post 12077820)

Flying over the guy's house under 400Ft AGL. I think that is the rule, endangering structures, and people for no reason. Again it was an Invasion of Privacy

Originally Posted by porcia83 (Post 12077857)

I know I shouldn't be surprised to read stuff like this on the web, but if what this guy did isn't the definition of reckless what is? Knee jerky and ill thought out response to a quad flying over his house. And unless I missed it in the different stories, he never proved that the guy was filming anything, just that it had a camera on it. He had the time to go in and select a specific guage of ammo, but didn't think to call the cops? Great that he had a gun and all, but what if the drone guys did too. Really worth a possible fire-fight? It will cost him to defend, just as it does anyone who breaks the law and is charged. I do suspect however the charges will be decreased, some minor charge agreed to, and a fine paid.





He was in the air, not on the property. He has no rights to the air over his home....doesn't need permission to fly over it no more than a private pilot does flying a plane. Not sure where you come up with invasion of property either. He won't countersue, has not cause of action, only the ramifications of his actions to deal with. He was just as reckless as the dope flying over the guys house. But the guy flying didn't break any laws. Notwithstanding what you or I think about what is right or wrong, but what the guy can be charged with.



Again, no basis in law for him to sue, no cause of action (not that that hasn't stopped a lawsuit from being filed). It stopped becoming a civil action once the guy shot a gun, it's now a criminal matter. You are right though, lots of time and effort will be wasted on this. Better approach would have been letting the pros deal with it. I'd like to see what the outcome is as well. To many of these stories get reported, and then you never hear about the outcome.



Again, you may feel this....but it ain't the law. Only one guy got cuffed and stuffed, and it wasn't the quad flyer. Right or wrong, that's fact.

So we'll see more of these stories, and in most cases the quad flyer won't be charged (in similar cases). Both sides in this case operated recklessly. Just because you might be able to do something, doesn't mean you should. These type of flights will enflame and antagonize people and some will react poorly. For me, the solution is to not do it in the first place, but if it does happen, let the pros deal with it. Is any of this worth civil or criminal charges, guns being drawn, and potential loss of life?

Originally Posted by littlecrankshaf (Post 12077872)

Wow...a lot of what you assert is yet to be proved. I suspect camera equipped RPVs, invading personal privacy, will find the law against them. I am more than happy to wait and see if I am right...but I guess you already have your mind made up.

Originally Posted by porcia83 (Post 12077923)

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.

Originally Posted by porcia83 (Post 12078002)

I think we both probably agree it's not right to fly a machine like this over someone's yard or property, even if a camera isn't filming. I think that kind of flying is reckless and opens the pilot up to civil and probably criminal charges down the line. I suspect the laws are going to start coming down harshly against that type of flying as well. We'll both be around to see it....:)