
Man shoots down drone, gets hit with felony charges in Minnesota - clairity
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/05/minnesota-man-faces-felony-charges-for-shooting-down-drone/
======
csense
For me the biggest question is: If you don't want a drone on your property,
but you don't know who owns the drone that's flying around on your land,
what's the proper, lawful way for you to handle the situation?

Also the article's really sketchy on facts of this specific case.

What was the shooter's motive?

Was the shooter an employee of the meat processing plant?

If so, was the shooter acting on his own initiative, or was he ordered by his
work superiors to shoot down the drone?

(I've been playing the Switch re-release of Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney
lately so these kinds of questions come to mind, haha.)

------
downerending
If the line taken here is that drone operators should be able to act with
relative impunity, then drones need to be heavily regulated, with filed flight
plans, and under the control of FAA flight control centers.

~~~
mdszy
You realize you don't even need a flight plan to operate manned aircraft,
right?

~~~
s1artibartfast
Yes, But a manned aircraft can not hover outside my bedroom window in my
backyard

~~~
Rebelgecko
As someone who used to live in a neighborhood that was frequented by "ghetto
birds"[1], I have anecdotal evidence to the contrary. I think the main
difference between a consumer multicoper and a helicopter is the barrier of
entry to purchase one (and become qualified to fly it) and the operating costs

[1]: Ice Cube once wrote a song to express his frustration w.r.t. how police
helicopters outside his bedroom interfered with his sleep schedule:
[https://genius.com/Ice-cube-ghetto-bird-lyrics](https://genius.com/Ice-cube-
ghetto-bird-lyrics)

------
blaser-waffle
> The Federal Aviation Administration has said that shooting down a drone is
> illegal under the same federal aviation laws that make it illegal to shoot
> down a crewed aircraft.

I get the logic, sort of, but I think this law lacks nuance. No one died,
unless the drone fell on them; statutes about property damage and/or
manslaughter would cover anything else.

~~~
p_l
It falls under "causing danger in air transport", especially since you can't
upfront ensure the fine will fall safely.

------
inamberclad
We're coming back to the same question about how to 'count' RC aircraft and
drones. Right now, it's a felony to interfere with the operations of any
aircraft. But is a quadcopter/drone an aircraft? What about an RC plane? How
big can it be before it counts?

Right now, 14 CFR 107 only covers commercial UAS uses and 14 CRF 91 only
covers full sized, manned aircraft. Not only do these two parts of the FAA
regs not mix, parts are actively incompatible since, for example, an aircraft
must stay 1000 feet ABOVE the tallest obstacle within 2000 lateral feet (when
over 'congested areas'), and a part 107 regulated drone must stay BELOW 400
feet above the immediate uppermost portion of an obstacle or structure within
400 lateral feet.

Furthermore, neither of these regulations cover hobby flying, except perhaps
that drones are generally prohibited from flying more than 400 feet above
ground level.

~~~
zupzupper
Actually quadcopters/drones/fixed wing, RC aircraft et. al. are "aircraft" per
the FAA.

14 CFR 91 defines both, here's the FAA interpretation of 14 CFR 91, which they
also produced to explain why they were allowed to further regulate RC aircraft
operations outside of the boundaries set by congress in the FAA FAA
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.

[https://www.faa.gov/uas/educational_users/media/model_aircra...](https://www.faa.gov/uas/educational_users/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf)

Basically the FAA took the stance that all these things are "aircraft" and the
same sets of rules apply to their operation.

Shooting down or at a drone, or RC aircraft has always violated the same set
of laws, perpetrators just haven't yet been prosecuted for it yet.

------
koheripbal
> "...charges of criminal damage to property and reckless discharge of a
> weapon within city limits."

...doesn't seem like we need specific laws here for drones. Shooting someone's
property with a deadly weapon will break serious laws in almost all
jurisdictions.

~~~
clairity
it's pretty provocative on both sides. on one hand, flying camera scouting out
private property and individuals. on the other, shooting and destroying
private property. whose property (and privacy) rights should win?

uncovering illegal activity is generally a societal good, but invasion of
privacy is not. protecting privacy (and property) rights are a general
societal good, but destroying others' property is not.

~~~
colejohnson66
> whose property (and privacy) rights should win?

I’m of the opinion that they both violated each other’s rights and both should
be punished.

------
Gunax
You don't own the airspace above you. If someone wants to fly over your house
or business, they can generally do that--airplanes fly over your private
property all the time.

Granted this bozo might be violating FAA guidelines by flying too low or out
of sight.

~~~
welcome_dragon
Depends on the locality. In TN, for example, flying a drone over private
property under 500 ft can be considered criminal trespassing.

~~~
codeddesign
In general as per the FAA, your airspace ends at the tallest object - whether
it’s a tree, a house, or tower structure on your property. I guess if it was
low enough in some states you could argue that it failed to state intentions
and you felt unsafe.

------
petermcneeley
I figured it out. He should have bought his own drone and interrupted the
other drones flight path.

~~~
bitxbitxbitcoin
Or become a falconer and have his bird "accidentally" take the drone down.

