Kentucky man shoots down drone that hovered over his sunbathing daughters

[SP33Demon]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...house-arrested-charged-criminal-mischief.html
http://wtop.com/national/2015/08/man-arrested-for-shooting-down-a-drone-hovering-over-his-yard/

A father has been arrested after shooting down an $1,800 drone that was reportedly hovering over his two sunbathing daughters.

William H. Merideth, 47, from Kentucky was charged with first-degree criminal mischief and first-degree wanton endangerment.

The owner of the drone claims he was only trying to take pictures of a friend's house when Merideth shot at the device, sending it crashing into a field near his yard last weekend.

'Sunday afternoon, the kids – my girls – were out on the back deck, and the neighbors were out in their yard," Merideth told WDRD. 'And they come in and said, "Dad, there’s a drone out here, flying over everybody’s yard."

'I went and got my shotgun and I said, "I'm not going to do anything unless it's directly over my property,"' he added.

At that time, the drone was hovering over the house of a neighbor, Kim VanMater, who has a 16-year-old daughter who likes to lay out by the pool.

VanMeter said: '(The drone) was just hovering above our house and it stayed for a few moments and then my daughter finally waved and it took off.'
...
His daughter, who called it “weird and creepy,” finally waved at the device, and it flew away.

Meredith said when he came out it was over his neighbor’s house, “10 feet off the ground, looking under their canopy that they’ve got in their back yard,” he said. “I went and got my shotgun and I said, ‘I’m not going to do anything unless it’s directly over my property.’”

Pedos and burglars everywhere are loving this. Fly in and take photos with no repercussions (yet) on private property. If drones were hovering over his daughters sunbathing then I don't see a problem with him shooting it down, even if illegal.

This is where the UK is ahead of us in regulating this garbage.

Personal use of drones, usually referred to as UAV’s in the UK, is governed by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) Air Navigation Regulations, and in very basic terms the most pertinent rules for drone enthusiasts are:

-It must be kept within line of sight at all times by the pilot – this is usually considered to be 500 metres horizontally and 400 feet vertically. You’re also not allowed to work around the line of sight rule by having spotters or relying on someone not in control of the drone relaying messages about its position. Operation beyond the distances stated need special approval from the CAA.
-The pilot must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property.
-Drones must not be flown within 150 metres of any congested area, within 150 metres of an outdoor assembly of more than 1,000 people, or within 50 metres of any individual except during take-off and landing. You’re also not allowed to fly drones within 50 metres of any other vehicle, structure or property that’s not under your control.
-Unmanned aircraft with a camera attached or built-in are classified as an unmanned surveillance aircraft, and are also subject to stricter rules regarding the operation. For example, if there’s a camera on-board, you’re not allowed to fly the drone within 30 metres of any inidividual, rather than 50 metres.

http://thenextweb.com/gadgets/2014/07/04/use-personal-drones-legally-beginners-guide/

Sucks for the owner that the FAA can't get its shit together like the UK to protect us from this type of BS. Maybe more cases like this will get them to adopt similar laws to the UK, where the drone owners would have been arrested for flying within 50m of a house and 30m of a person.

 

[waggy]

this is yet another stupid thing that are going to get them banned. fucking pervs.

Can't say i blame the guy for shooting it down. but still a silly thing to do.

 

[her209]

As far as reasonable expectation of privacy in one's backyard, there is none (granted, the plane was flying at 1,000 ft, and not 250 ft).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/476/207

 

[Elixer]

This is why you need a autonomous attack drone to take care of issues like this.

 

[Jaskalas]

This is why you need a autonomous attack drone to take care of issues like this.

Drones to battle drones. By hook and claw.

I love it.

 

[Brainonska511]

P&N Repost

And also quite relevant to the story:

The guy claims his drone was 200 ft above the ground when it was shot down.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ests-shot-down-drone-was-higher-than-alleged/

The pilot of the drone shot down Sunday evening over a Kentucky property has now come forward with video provided to Ars, seemingly showing that the drone wasn’t nearly as close as the property owner made it out to be. However, the federal legal standard for how far into the air a person’s private property extends remains in dispute. 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.

 

[waggy]

P&N Repost

And also quite relevant to the story:

ok never-mind. fuck him. it wasn't as he said at first. though if he hit a moving target at almost 300ft in air that was a good shot. lol

 

[shortylickens]

The thing crashing when it drops isnt really a serious problem.

Its the bullets. If you shoot up in the air you are going to hit something a long way off with just about the same velocity at which the bullets or pellets left the muzzle (minus air resistance).

THAT could kill somebody. Maybe even multiple people.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

this thread is worthless without sunbathing daughters

 

[DaveSimmons]

Repost, but:

a) it was buckshot not a rifle bullet, so the spread-out pellets will be much less dangerous

b) the drone pilot claims the SD card for the drone was "missing" so it's just his word and an easily-edited text file of telemetry data to say that it was 200 feet and not 20. The shooter never had access to the card, and asked the police to take custody of the drone and card to prove his version of the story.

So either one could be lying, but the shooter is the one who wanted the video to be seen.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Repost, but:

a) it was buckshot not a rifle bullet, so the spread-out pellets will be much less dangerous

b) the drone pilot claims the SD card for the drone was "missing" so it's just his word and an easily-edited text file of telemetry data to say that it was 200 feet and not 20. The shooter never had access to the card, and asked the police to take custody of the drone and card to prove his version of the story.

So either one could be lying, but the shooter is the one who wanted the video to be seen.

i can find nothing supporting either your point b) or that the shooter wanted the video released. the article specifically states it was the pilot/owner that released the video and related data to ars.

you seem predisposed to find the pilot at fault, since you dismiss the only data recording of the event which supports the pilot's story. what forensics have you performed on this data?

 

[DaveSimmons]

The "video" in the Ars article is not from the drone's camera. It is an iPad app that plots a course based on an easily-edited text file. The pilot claims the SD card from the drone's camera was lost.

 

[KeithP]

As far as reasonable expectation of privacy in one's backyard, there is none (granted, the plane was flying at 1,000 ft, and not 250 ft).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/476/207

That case is completely different then what happened here and wouldn't be relevant.

-KeithP

 

[DrPizza]

The thing crashing when it drops isnt really a serious problem.

Its the bullets. If you shoot up in the air you are going to hit something a long way off with just about the same velocity at which the bullets or pellets left the muzzle (minus air resistance).

THAT could kill somebody. Maybe even multiple people.

"minus air resistance" - Fortunately, in this instance, air resistance isn't negligible. In fact, it's pretty damn important. Also, if I recall correctly, it wasn't buckshot, it was #8 birdshot. On the way back down, you'd barely even notice if you were hit by a piece.

Personally, I think the police screwed up by not taking the data - or the guy screwed up by not taking it and making a copy before the police arrived (if he was capable of doing that). If the guy's version - they were taking pictures and video of his daughters sunbathing - is true, then that evidence would help exonerate the guy, as well as paint the drone operators in a very bad light.

 

[krose]

How does #8 shot bring anything down at 200 feet? Range is only like 30 yards at the most with full choke? Drone had to be pretty close to be shot down

 

[vi edit]

Lots of shenanigans on the height it was at. Would take a ton of luck to bring it down at that distance with #8 bird shot. Not impossible, but very crack shot. Plus on it's way down it would be like having a handful of ticktacs tossed at you by a toddler.

 

[shortylickens]

this thread is worthless without sunbathing daughters

I'm sure 4chan has what you need.

 

[Pacfanweb]

How does #8 shot bring anything down at 200 feet? Range is only like 30 yards at the most with full choke? Drone had to be pretty close to be shot down

Agreed, #8 shot isn't likely going to hurt that thing at 200 feet. g

40 yds, or 120' is the typical expected kill range for bird shot.

200' "up"...I suppose the shot could foul something up, but I don't think it'd do much actual harm at that range.

 

[DrPizza]

I'm going to disagree. 200 feet isn't out of the question for #8 shot. I think some are considering what's considered the effective distance to *kill* birds versus wound birds. I don't think a drone is as tough as a duck. To kill a duck, you need pellets hitting critical areas. I've never shot down a drone before, but I'd guess that the surface area that could be struck and cripple a drone is significantly more than it is for a duck.

It's an interesting question though - one that could be tested with a lot of helium balloons, fish line, and a piece of cardboard. Heck, just a single helium balloon might work. Raise it to 200 feet and shoot it. How many pellets do you suppose it takes to cripple a drone? Just 2 or 3?

 

[NAC4EV]

Maybe it wasn't #8.

Maybe it was buck.

Maybe the drone was hovering and he used a slug.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

I'm still waiting on the Taser drone. Have Taser installed on drone to go attach other drones. Or maybe one that shoots bottle rockets.

 

[skyking]

piece of weighted line or small net with a release hook. there's your killer drone.
"too close for missiles, switching to nets!"

 

[gorcorps]

The thing crashing when it drops isnt really a serious problem.

Its the bullets. If you shoot up in the air you are going to hit something a long way off with just about the same velocity at which the bullets or pellets left the muzzle (minus air resistance).

THAT could kill somebody. Maybe even multiple people.

It was a shotgun, not a rifle or a pistol. Shotgun shot will never be able to kill something on the way down, ever. It's not like a rifle or pistol round that can remain ballistic through it's entire trajectory, it's a light round ball that loses energy very quickly. I've been sprayed from afar with #5 shot while pheasant hunting, it happens. People should never be shooting in the direction of other people, but it happens. It sounds like rain, and it just bounces off your clothes.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

Airsoft gun works well on those pesky drones.

 

[dainthomas]

No jury would convict that guy.