
Man takes drone out for a sunset flight, drone gets shot down - CPLX
https://arstechnica.com/?post_type=post&p=1082721
======
hinkley
Dear assholes,

Bullets have a ballistic trajectory and if you miss your target in a populated
area, the bullet is quite likely going into someone's house or car.

    
    
                  Signed,
                  The Internet
    
    

(I'm not a fan of drones flying over my house either, but wtf people)

~~~
bmelton
Not that I would be likely to shoot at anything, but if I were shooting down a
drone, I'd probably use a 12-gauge filled with birdshot. Assuming the shooter
in this case chose similarly, then falling projectile damage is extremely
unlikely. Possibly some eye injury if it landed just so, but looking at the
sparse terrain this drone was flying over (if representative), it's hard to
say whether or not shooting at the drone was dangerous per se.

Edit: Looking at the image[1] of the affected drone, it doesn't really look
like a BB from a shotgun. It still could be, but it does look more like a .22
hole to me.

[1] - [https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-
content/uploads/2017/04/Photo...](https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-
content/uploads/2017/04/Photo-Apr-18-8-24-41-PM-1280x960.jpg)

~~~
justin66
> Assuming the shooter in this case chose similarly, then falling projectile
> damage is extremely unlikely.

This varies by locality but in anything you'd ordinarily consider a suburban
residential neighborhood, this would still amount to unlawful discharge of a
firearm, I would think. If not fired into a backstop those little pellets are
going to fall to earth and embed themselves into _something._

~~~
tyingq
The individual pellets in 12 gauge number 8 birdshot weigh less than 0.08
grams and measure .09″ in diameter.

Falling birdshot isn't embedding itself into anything. Direct blast, sure.

------
dvt
From United States v. Causby:

 _We have said that the airspace is a public highway. Yet it is obvious that
if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive
control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise
buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences
could not be run. The principle is recognized when the law gives a remedy in
case overhanging structures are erected on adjoining land. 9 The landowner
owns at least as much of the space above the ground as the can occupy or use
in connection with the land. See Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport, 9 Cir., 84
F.2d 755. The fact that he does not occupy it in a physical sense-by the
erection of buildings and the like-is not material. As we have said, the
flight of airplanes, which skim the surface but do not touch it, is as much an
appropriation of the use of the land as a more conventional entry upon it. We
would not doub that if the United States erected [328 U.S. 256, 265] an
elevated railway over respondents ' land at the precise altitude where its
planes now fly, there would be a partial taking, even though none of the
supports of the structure rested on the land. 10 The reason is that there
would be an intrusion so immediate and direct as to subtract from the owner's
full enjoyment of the property and to limit his exploitation of it. While the
owner does not in any physical manner occupy that stratum of airspace or make
use of it in the conventional sense, he does use it in somewhat the same sense
that space left between buildings for the purpose of light and air is used.
The superadjacent airspace at this low altitude is so close to the land that
continuous invasions of it affect the use of the surface of the land itself.
We think that the landowner, as an incident to his ownership, has a claim to
it and that invasions of it are in the same category as invasions of the
surface. 11_

Obviously, it's a tricky issue. It's hard to see if _flying_ a drone over
someone else's property is illegal or not. It seems that it might be
contingent on altitude, noise, and other forms of disruption.

~~~
pdabbadabba
All true. But I'm not sure this has much to say about whether it is acceptable
to _shoot_ the intruding drone.

~~~
bmelton
According to the FAA, it is unlawful to shoot at any aircraft, including
drones, as is is outlawed in 18 US Code, 32 - and considered "aircraft
sabotage", and is subject to 20 years in jail, a fine, or both.

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/32](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/32)

Of course that is in conflict with Causby, which would likely take precedent
at low altitudes, though the not-unlikely result might be a test for exactly
what altitude a flight would need to be to be defensible in shooting.

At the end of the day though, whichever way the law sides, the drone operator
has civil restitution available (if it can be proved who shot), which should
help shape the court cases.

~~~
pdabbadabba
Yes, of course it is illegal to shoot an aircraft! (Though I'm less clear on
whether that particular rule applies to consumer drones.) But, again, there is
no 'conflict' between the FAA regs and Causby. Causby does not allow you to
shoot things, it just establishes the boundaries of property owner's property
rights.

~~~
bmelton
So, what we don't have here is jurisprudence that relates to the trespass
and/or shooting of _objects_. Your other statement is correct that you can't
shoot _a person_ merely for trespassing, but I'd say it's (at least slightly)
more reasonable to assume that if Johnny 5 from Short Circuit (or a scarier
robot) were wheeling up to your front door, that you might be within your
existing property rights to shoot it.

Because it's property and not people, the redress would likely not be
criminal, but civil. Within Causby's 83 foot criteria, the rationality of that
defense doesn't really change, whether aircraft or no. Ergo, you _would_ have
a conflict between Causby and US Code. I dare say that because it's a federal
rule, it would carry less weight than a local one, as 83+n feet is hardly un-
arbitrary.

Long story short though, there's quite a lot of nuance here for which we don't
have precedent.

~~~
pdabbadabba
I think what we have here is a confusion between rights and remedies. Causby
tells you what your rights are. But it doesn't say much about what remedies
you're permitted to employ in securing those rights (except getting 5th
Amendment takings compensation, which is what was going on in the case). These
are quite separate legal questions.

Ordinarily (but not always), you're limited to using peaceful means to secure
your rights. That would generally not include shooting stuff, though there may
be exception.

So where I think you're right is that we don't have a good rule that tells you
whether you can shoot a robot that walks/flies/drives onto your property. This
is definitely different from shooting a person, and one could imagine it being
permissible in certain situations. And come to think of it, we probably _do_
have questions about your rights to remove or destroy other people's stuff
when it's left on your property without your permission. That might be
indirectly informative. But I don't have the time or inclination to really
look into it at the moment. :)

~~~
bmelton
Sorry, not trying to confuse the two, so much as acknowledging that they're
_both_ probably complicated here, but also as remedy often factors in to the
severity of a crime, then it extends lenience to the interpretation of a
right.

e.g., I can get away with kicking your tire than I can your shin. Of course,
damages is a factor here too.

Property rights are complicated as hell though. It occurs to me that one
doesn't necessarily even have the unilateral right to destroy one's own
property, so, yeah, I'm just going to rest on "it's complicated" and hope
somebody more informed comes along to school me.

------
elipsey
Is it acceptable to shoot your neighbor's property if you believe it is being
used to create an illegal nuisance?

Does this rule generalize well?

For example:

\--my neighbor's motorcycle clearly has an illegal muffler, which annoys me in
my home; am I justified in shooting it?

\--my neighbors somtimes play amplified music outdoors on the private easement
in front of my home after 10pm, in violation of the city noise ordinance; am I
justified in shooting the stereo?

\--unauthorized cars are often parked in my private lot in spite of clear
sign-age; may I reasonably shoot them?

~~~
dvt
The answer is very intuitively an emphatic "no" \-- you can't go around
destroying property willy-nilly.

------
olivermarks
I own a drone and am acutely aware of people's unease about what is
essentially a flying camera.

The surveillance implications of it being disallowed to disable an intrusive
drone are worrying - while I'd be v unhappy if my expensive drone was shot
down it is a worry if that was completely illegal. The snooping realities of
drone/cameras in the wrong hands are pretty bad, from burglars scoping out
targets and peeping toms all the way up to state spying on citizens.

I don't have any answers on this, but it seems our legislation is suddenly
very out of date...

------
JorgeGT
The example video has no audio track, but in real life I could see how someone
would not be OK with the buzzing noise [1] of a drone flying "as he does on
most nights".

By the way, is flying a drone legal over populated places in the US? At least
in my country it's illegal [2].

\---

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI0i1wfKB_I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI0i1wfKB_I)

[2]
[http://www.seguridadaerea.gob.es/media/4427085/recomendacion...](http://www.seguridadaerea.gob.es/media/4427085/recomendaciones_uso_drones.pdf)

------
Veratyr
I believe this is a stupid idea but it's come up on the Reddit thread for this
article quite frequently: Can you use a GPS/2.4GHz jammer to interfere with a
drone flying over your property?

The FCC is quite clear on the legality and penalties for doing so
([https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/jammerenforcement/jamfaq.pdf](https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/jammerenforcement/jamfaq.pdf))
but what I'm not clear on is whether the FCC can practically enforce those
laws. How can someone (not the FCC) determine a jammer is being employed and
would the FCC actually do anything about it?

~~~
falcolas
The FCC has vehicles with directional finders; if interference is reported,
they can track it down and take the appropriate action (fines, etc).

------
wccrawford
It's pathetic how he keeps blaming the neighbor without any proof at all. He
even claims to have had no complaints, yet the neighbor told him he "didn't
like the damn thing".

Seems like the drone flier was the real asshole here. Someone probably got fed
up with it and finally took action.

Yes, firing a gun in the air is incredibly dangerous and illegal all on its
own. There was no excuse for it.

But there's also no excuse for this guy bothering his neighbors with it just
because they can't stop him. Or at least, he thought they couldn't.

~~~
sgift
> It's pathetic how he keeps blaming the neighbor without any proof at all. He
> even claims to have had no complaints, yet the neighbor told him he "didn't
> like the damn thing".

Nothing pathetic. Theory of least surprise. He stood near the position the
thing was shot. No one else was directly visible. He is armed. He didn't like
the drone. Is this proof? No. Is it pathetic to assume it? Also no.

> Seems like the drone flier was the real asshole here.

And you know this because ...?

> But there's also no excuse for this guy bothering his neighbors with it just
> because they can't stop him. Or at least, he thought they couldn't.

Yeah, because it is a good idea to allow any idiot to do whatever he wants if
he doesn't like something.

------
droithomme
In this case the only suspect denies shooting and there's no hard evidence
pinning him to it. It would be a waste of time to prosecute. It's extremely
impressive though that someone was able to hit a small moving drone from a
distance with a single bullet fired. Whoever fired the shot is either lucky or
an exquisite marksman.

------
drivingmenuts
Seems like the minimum height for general aviation is 500 feet. Why isn't it
the same for drones?

~~~
jdhawk
Drones are specifically required to stay under 400ft.

[https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/](https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/)

------
EGreg
The real question is, what about drones flying above a crowded place like
Times Square?

1\. Is it legal according to all the regulations?

2\. What about liability if a drone malfunctions and divebombs some people?

~~~
pavel_lishin
> 1\. Is it legal according to all the regulations?

Turns out that New York has not passed any relevant drone laws that I've
found, but FAA guidelines specifically say you should not fly above groups of
people:

[https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/fly_for_fun/](https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/fly_for_fun/)

~~~
CPLX
NYC has banned drones generally, except for some specific parks in the outer
boroughs: [http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-
resources/service/5521/drones](http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-
resources/service/5521/drones)

~~~
pavel_lishin
Huh, I didn't know that! Thanks.

~~~
EGreg
I think that's being challenged in Federal court

------
TazeTSchnitzel
> Everything was fine, except the left rear motor with a bullet hole in it.

Potential market gap here: gunshot-resistant drones, exclusively for the US
market.

------
Neliquat
If you fly your drone over private property, get permission. How hard is that?

~~~
pavel_lishin
From the article:

> _" I never crossed his property—I looked back at my flight log—I never once
> crossed his property."_

