
Man shoots downs neighbor’s hexacopter - nkurz
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/man-shoots-downs-neighbors-hexacopter-in-rural-drone-shotgun-battle/
======
mullingitover
> This is the third time discharge from your firearms has hit our house and
> property. The first incident left a bullet hole in the door by our garage.
> The second incident occurred last Thanksgiving when birdshot from your skeet
> shooting activities rained into our backyard. The third, of course, being
> what we're currently discussing.

I'm fascinated that this isn't grounds for immediate arrest and, after your
stint of several months or years in prison, permanent loss of your right to
own firearms. What a country we live in.

~~~
baddox
It seems pretty clear that the police were never made aware of the gunshots. I
doubt it is legal to shoot your neighbor's house anywhere in this country.

~~~
cyorir
Perhaps it's not legal, but that doesn't necessarily mean the police will act.
Depending on where it is, rural police may be less willing to follow up on
complaints if the suspect is armed (lack of manpower compared to urban
counterparts, and greater distance to fire station, hospital etc. in case
something happens). They'll be less likely to act if the offence is minor; a
bullet hitting a window or door would probably only lead to a small or medium
fine.

~~~
yrro
> a bullet hitting a window or door would probably only lead to a small or
> medium fine.

To me, this sounds completely crazy. If a person was standing by the door or
window they could have been injured or killed!

~~~
grkvlt
The operative words here are _could have been_ \- nobody was injured or
killed. Of course, if that did happen, then the usual consequences of injuring
or killing someone with a firearm ensue. The problem is, there are _many_
things that _could_ injure someone, and you cannot simply make them all
illegal, otherwise driving would be an offence. However, note that negligence
is probably citeable as a factor in some of these cases, so perhaps that is
the route to go down?

------
carlisle_
Under the same circumstances there is no way I could ever be as civil as that
dude, so major props to him. The most alarming part of the whole thing:

>This is the third time discharge from your firearms has hit our house and
property. The first incident left a bullet hole in the door by our garage.

I don't even know what to say, this guy obviously is reckless and
irresponsible about how he uses his guns.

~~~
GigabyteCoin
If that happened in Canada you would be in jail after the first offence.

I know a buddy who owns a gun, and he is only allowed to discharge it at a gun
range. And he is only allowed to carry his gun on his person if he is on the
way to the gun range.

~~~
justin66
In Modesto, CA unlawful discharge of a firearm (firing into a neighbor's yard
because you believe the CIA is flying a surveillance drone there probably
qualifies) might land you in jail as well. The victim didn't call the police.

~~~
2muchcoffeeman
That just raises more questions. Forgive me, I'm Australian.

Why, after having live fire arms discharged in your direction (on 3 separate
occasions) did the victim NOT call the police?

And why after going to small claims court, was the shooter not brought up on
this? The shooter doesn't appear to have disputed the claim that he shot in
the direction of someone else's property.

~~~
spiritplumber
I wouldn't call the American police on a burglar, if I caught him. They have
too high a chance of being insane and dangerous, and someone might get shot
even if the situation has settled, and it might even be me.

(This has, in fact, happened. Turns out the guy didn't know I was home and
just wanted a place to sleep, so I put him up in the living room on an air bed
and told him to take a shower before leaving)

~~~
nekopa
Are you talking about the police being insane and dangerous?

~~~
mcv
I regularly see stories about Americans calling the police and getting shot as
a result.

~~~
krapp
If you regularly see stories about it, then it must be a common occurrence.
Like how everyone who uses TOR is a pedophile or terrorist.

~~~
hga
Thing is, we have numerous specific atrocities that are cited in these
stories, which we do not, to my knowledge, have about Tor.

~~~
krapp
No, the thing is that violent encounters with the police are reported by the
media, and nonviolent encounters are not, because they're not news.

Based on reporting, one could also assume American blacks are violent thugs,
Muslims are hate filled radicals, and all the Jews in the world are in Israel.

~~~
hga
Thing is, your example fits in with "the natural order of things". No one is
surprised that some members of a general group of people are "violent thugs",
since there are people who are like that. Ditto "hate filled radicals", and
there are observably many Jews in Israel, it was established for that exact
purpose.

Whereas there's a mainstream theory that police are there to "protect and
serve" the non-criminal population in a Western nation, it's not supposed to
be in the natural order that they're e.g. observably eager to kill your dogs
given the slightest opportunity.

It's very counterproductive, to the extent they in theory exist to preserve
order, it deprives them of vital information. It's _extraordinarily_ short
sighted to behave that way, for so called "good cops" to look the other way
when "bad cops" do that, _in a thoroughly armed society_ they have no hope of
disarming.

------
mirimir
> Manned aircraft, even quite low-flying ones, are not trespassers — at least
> so long as they comply with FAA rules on overflights, which usually means
> 500 feet or higher. Helicopters can go even lower without trespassing so
> long as they are operating in a safe manner. As a result, unless the drone
> is quite low, there may not be an actionable trespass at all. And if there
> is no trespass there may be no intrusion justifying self-help.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/2014...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/2014/10/03/self-defense-against-overflying-drones/)

Edit: Nolo has a page about the issue: [http://www.nolo.com/legal-
encyclopedia/what-do-when-your-nei...](http://www.nolo.com/legal-
encyclopedia/what-do-when-your-neighbor-has-drone.html)

~~~
omginternets
I'm fairly certain that drones don't qualify as manned aircraft. ;)

Moreover, my understanding is that there's a big gap in case-law concerning
drone use. It's really a shame that this trigger-happy hick didn't take the
drone case to court, as he might have made a meaningful contribution to the
U.S. justice system by doing so.

~~~
mirimir
Yes, the legal status of drones is unclear. And there's not much case law.
This should have been a clear case, given that the downed drone was reportedly
never over the neighbor's property.

But maybe the trigger-happy family appreciated this fact, and just wanted to
make a statement. I certainly don't like the idea of being surveilled. And
it's not just cameras. Drones can easily carry compact equipment for LAN
hacking[0] or exfiltrating key material.[1] But for those applications, one
would need to land the drone in a suitable location.

[0]
[http://www.securitytube.net/groups?operation=view&groupId=9](http://www.securitytube.net/groups?operation=view&groupId=9)

[1]
[https://www.tau.ac.il/~tromer/radioexp/](https://www.tau.ac.il/~tromer/radioexp/)

------
Intermernet
"I thought it was a CIA surveillance device."

What sort of reasoning is that to fire a shotgun at a drone? If it was a CIA
device he'd be up for a whole lot more than $850. I don't think the CIA take
you to Small Claims.

~~~
gnoway
It wasn't a reason, it was an excuse. He wanted to shoot the drone down, so he
did and then made up a reason.

~~~
savanaly
We don't know any of these people, why are we judging them? Sorry to pick your
comment, I had this thought after reading any given comment in this thread.
Suppress the instinct to judge people you don't know, it is tempting but
pernicious, and (occasionally) the path to great evil.

------
ck2
Shooting weapons in the air without knowing what people are around and what
exactly you are aiming at should be considered mental illness or at a minimum
felony operation of a weapon and their guns should be seized.

Seriously, if you a "fan of gun" and want guns to be legal, you need to have
strict rules or people think of them as toys.

~~~
ghshephard
Well, I agree with you, but, in all fairness, the individual did know exactly
what he was shooting - a drone. And he took it out in one shot.

~~~
adekok
And the shotgun pellets land... where? What's his backstop?

Firing guns into the air means that the bullets come down. And they can hurt
people.

~~~
monochromatic
Birdshot is fired into the air when hunting birds. It loses its energy very
quickly and should be moving slowly enough not to cause damage when it lands
(unless maybe a pellet hits you in the eyeball or something). Pistol and rifle
bullets are another story entirely.

------
lifeformed
The title made this sound like a far more exciting duel, with shotguns mounted
on competing drones. "Rural drone shotgun battle".

------
cm2187
That being said, drones are a pretty nice toy for stalkers. Not sure this
particular story qualifies but it will lead to some grudge between neighbours.

~~~
jsmthrowaway
Have you ever _seen_ a drone? They sound like an angry hornet's nest and fly
about 20 minutes. The stalker stuff is pure FUD, promulgated by people who are
afraid of them based on a hypothetical that has to date never happened. Once.

Read every story that claims it has and think hard.

~~~
m4x
Doesn't the noise make it more likely to cause a grudge between neighbors? If
it was quiet enough to go undetected then the neighbor would never know or
care about the UAVs presence.

I have been buzzed by a curious neighbor before and it was unsettling and
extremely rude (it also spooked our livestock and could have cost my parents a
lot of money)

Don't assume the people around you are happy to have UAVs flying near or above
them or their property, regardless of whether the UAV is being used for
stalking/surveillance. For one thing, they can't know for sure what it's being
used for, and even if they're confident it isn't conducting surveillance it is
generally seen as rude at best to invade somebody's privacy.

~~~
jsmthrowaway
> Don't assume the people around you are happy to have UAVs flying near or
> above them or their property,

When I'm flying in public, I approach people who wander in to what I think of
as a "zone" and explain what's going on. With absolutely zero exceptions
across several hundred people, the reaction has been positive. Nearly everyone
has a load of questions to ask me about aerial photography and drones in
general; one woman in her 60s spent half an hour sitting next to me just
amazed at the technology, often just watching me fly for minutes at a time,
and telling me about her grandson in the Air Force.

In over two thousand hours of flying, I've had precisely one negative
experience: a contract security guard at Wind River Systems in Alameda came up
to me and threatened to have me arrested on the basis that I was trespassing
on Wind River property, even though the specific space is Alameda public
shoreline and I had done research on this beforehand. He got in my face and
shouted expletives at me, no matter how much I attempted to defuse the
situation. To be honest, based on comments like yours (and many more before
it), I expected when I got in to this hobby to have many more experiences like
it. That hasn't happened.

I've found that doing your research, not being stupid, and being open and
willing to talk to people instead of confrontational and falling back on the
rules ("I'm permitted to be here" instead of "hey, is it okay with you that
I'm flying nearby?") has brought about a positive interaction without fail.
Countless people have asked to see my work: once while flying at Berkeley
Marina, an impromptu show developed from a few sailors asking to see their
vessel from above.

Your assertion about people suffers from confirmation bias. _You_ feel that
way, so you think everyone feels that way. In my extensive experience
operating unmanned vehicles, I regret to inform you that you are in the
tiniest of minorities. I work very hard to maintain a good positive image for
the hobby, which is why I'm never rude to someone. You have to return that
courtesy and open a line of dialogue with me if I'm making you uncomfortable,
because no matter how hard I work, I will occasionally make mistakes.

The typical expectation of privacy by most folks is completely flawed, by the
way, including by your comment, but I've learned that there's no path toward
arriving at any sort of agreement on that point.

Just as you have certain things you do not want me to assume (though you're
assuming I assume them), I have a few to return to you: simply because there
are people with more money than common sense who buy drones and harass people
and disrupt safety with them, don't assume anyone you see operating a drone is
one of them. Most pilots I know are very open and more than happy to talk to
you -- trust me, someone showing interest and talking to you is sometimes the
best part of any hobby because it's a chance to meet new people.

~~~
cm2187
And of course you know that every other buyer of drones will behave that way.

------
gabeio
I guess drone delivery services are going to be out of the question for rural
areas unless they are really flying high.

------
LoSboccacc
Man with shotgun drop neighboor drone, no battling drones involved

Discover this little secret about shotgun drones

------
ryandrake
Maybe this comes from a rural up-bringing, but one of the top rules on my list
is "Don't mess with crazy neighbors with guns". So, he shot down your toy.
Don't start an E-mail conversation with him! Don't call the police on him.
Next thing you know it'll be your dog instead of your drone, or worse. Just
pack up the pieces and be glad it was something replaceable.

I can't believe this guy voluntarily contacted (and then sued) someone who has
demonstrated no reservations about shooting his house.

~~~
megablast
Wow, you are something. As soon as someone has a gun, they are above the law
in your book?

~~~
cyorir
No one should be above the law, but the parent is right that safety concerns
also come into play. In this case the damage to the drone was ~$700. Provoking
someone who has already shown a disregard for your property could mean that
person will do more damage to your property, or could threaten harm or damage
to you. In this case, the legal concern of getting that $700 compensation may
be trivial compared to the safety concern.

