Colorado town rejects vote to shoot down drones

[Visioneer]

Oh, wait.. it's already happend. Not once but 4 times! And what did the police do?
Wait for it......
Wait for it.....
NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.suasnews.com/2012/11/19719/activists-drone-shot-out-of-the-sky-for-fourth-time/

If you view the report from a mainstream news source (NBC Affiliate WCAU) you'll find this opening line, "Police are investigating an incident at a Berks County hunting club in which someone on the hunting grounds allegedly targeted a mechanical flying object rather than a living and breathing one." It concludes that "... the Berks County's District Attorney. He told us the pigeon shoots are legal and that he also wants to find a way to put a stop to what he considers a "potentially deadly cat and mouse game" between SHARK and Wing Pointe."
- http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news...Shot-Down-at-Pigeon-Shoot-Cops-179983451.html

"Investigating" is not the same as "nothing".

Likely they "did nothing" immediately because there was no evidence showing WHO actually shot it down (hence they are "investigating"). Besides that, there may or may not have been any CRIMINAL law broken (though the fact that the shooter refused to show himself suggests he was not certain that he was totally within his rights - or he was a coward - or both). Police only act in the case of a criminal violation, they do not act in the case of a civil violation (except to possibly preclude further violation or escalation to criminal activity). The fact that they are investigating suggests they believe there's at least the potential for some law having been broken - otherwise they would, in fact, do nothing.

 

[Visioneer]

It would be the criminal equivalent of breaking a window, if that.

That analogy raises another that merits consideration ... suppose your neighbor mounts a camera facing your property in a tree that's right on the property line. ("You" as used here is the generic you, I'm not directing this to any specific poster).

First scenario - the camera is over his property. Do you think you have the right to do anything to the camera?

Second scenario - He inadvertently picks a branch that hangs over your property. Same question.

In the first case I believe the answer is no, you have no legal right to do anything to the camera. Your only legal option is to call the authorities for them to enforce whatever privacy laws may be being broken or, if they won't act, to take him to court. If you do anything to the camera, you are going to be breaking the law. [An aside - what if the camera is one with a huge telephoto lens, but is inside his house. Think that's any different in terms of what you can legally do?]

In the second case you have the same option to call authorities to investigate what, if any, privacy laws have been broken. But, in this case, you may remove the camera (and the branch for that matter), but you do not have a legal right to harm the camera or to keep it.

Now just put that camera on an UAS. Think that changes your legal rights with regard to what you can do to the camera? I suspect it does not.

You may not be prosecuted for shooting down a flying camera over your property, but I wouldn't count on it. The unique circumstances of the situation will come into play - they always do. If someone throws a punch at you, and you pull a knife to defend yourself, you might not simply walk away from the incident (especially if you inflict injury with the knife). That situation can, and has, led to prosecution of the knife wielder ... not every state has a "stand your ground" law and, if you could have simply avoided the attacker (i.e., you were not being pursued), you might be prosecuted.

As to a jury of your peers ... have you ever been on a jury? If you're thinking you'll be judged by 6 or 12 people who think just like you do, you could very well be surprised. I've served on 4 different juries. They're supposed to be impartial but the reality is that all jurors bring their biases, prejudices, and outlook on life with them. Frankly, while I don't have a better judicial system to offer, I hope I'm never in a position of being judged by "my peers". It's just too risky.

To blatantly state that so and so is what will happen when that will actually be decided by police, judges, and juries is a bit naive. It's one thing to state what the law says, it's quite another to predict how it will be administered. That's one reason why most court decisions are subject to all manner of appeals.

 

[Howzit]

As you pointed out, 'it depends'. I just like to fall back to the 'common sense' rule.

IMO, flying OVER my property at 50 feet isn't any different than someone pitching a ladder up against my fence and snapping pictures with a high powered lens. Both would result in a broken camera if it were my place (taking the tough guy stance, rawr :twisted: ).

Taking a picture/video from the edge of my property? Well, thats why someone invented walls and fences. Concerning privacy, most privacy laws would prevent someone from scaling my wall to invade any perceived privacy. All bets are off if you can observe it from off the property.

So, that begs the question - at what point/height does a quad mounted camera start posing a privacy concern? Imagine if paparazzi could hover over anyones home at will. The people with 'power' (politicians, CEOs, celebrities, etc) aren't going to 'allow' that at the end of the day.

 

[Visioneer]

it depends

As you summarized, "it depends" is exactly the point.

If they scale your wall to take pictures of your kids playing in their sandbox, you'll probably get away with breaking their camera. If they do it to take a picture of the uniform rows in your vegetable garden, maybe not. You can probably get away with a lot more in defending your kids than in defending your cabbage.

Aside from the fact that you can't absolutely be certain how things will play out, the key is to know what's legal, as opposed to what you might think is legal, so that you're never surprised by the consequences.

So, that begs the question - at what point/height does a quad mounted camera start posing a privacy concern? Imagine if paparazzi could hover over anyones home at will. The people with 'power' (politicians, CEOs, celebrities, etc) aren't going to 'allow' that at the end of the day.

That's gonna be a tough call - both to make and to enforce. Today the paparazzi can pretty well accomplish that with a helicopter and powerful lenses. I haven't paid a lot of attention to the legality of such but my sense is it's still not absolutely decided. If it has (or will be) worked out, enforcement regards paparazzi is a bit easier because they're going to publish their pictures (money is their whole point) - and there's the evidence! But for those who are, more or less, keeping their pics/vids to themselves, how is anyone going to know what images they've captured, and if they violate someone's privacy. And how will privacy be defined? If I take a high altitude pic of someone in my neighbor's back yard, but that individual is unidentifiable even though highly likely my neighbor, is that a violation? I hate to say it but the vagaries of the issue are such that I won't be surprised by overly restrictive regulations, i.e., because we can't know how powerful any specific craft's camera lens is, we can't allow any craft anywhere other than over your own, or public, property ... and, by the way, no peeking over the property line. It's going to be ... umm ... "interesting" to see how this all plays out.

 

[hook3m]

First scenario - the camera is over his property. Do you think you have the right to do anything to the camera?

Nope... As long as the camera is on his property. Nothing you can do about it. Doesn't matter if it's pointing to your property or not. Now if harassment goes along with it that's another story. I have surveillance cameras on my house that points toward the street that also captures 2 other houses in its view. Nothing they can do about it. They could ask that I move the camera so it doesn't capture their house but I'm under no legal obligation to do so.

Second scenario - He inadvertently picks a branch that hangs over your property. Same question.

As long as it's OVER your own property. Intentionally or inadvertently doesn't matter. Let’s say your neighbor has a tree growing on his property next to the property line. Any branch that crosses over and onto your property you are free to cut off (at the property line).

 

[av8inglife]

Hook3m,
I think if you actually put your personal opinions and rhetoric aside for 20 minutes and actually read to comprehension the laws regarding property rights and the airspace above it, these ridiculous internet arguments would be drastically reduced in number.

You seem to be unable to get passed the wild west mentality that the airspace above private land belongs solely to that land owner.
Frankly put, it does not. The airspace above your land..IS NOT YOURS EXCLUSIVELY.
There are plenty of legal cases that can be used as examples ranging from persons claiming trespass when an aircraft crashed following clipping trees on their property, all the way to people complaining about aircraft flying over their property. It takes a little honest effort to understand it all but it has been proven in court many times.
Take an aviation law class ( I did in college ) , read more, do something.

To think that in the year 2014 people want to run around shooting at **** in the air just because they believe they can if its over their land...wow

Everyone,
What needs to happen is common sense needs to be exhibited by both parties Land owner and r/c pilot... Both can be idiots in situations like these
-there is plenty of space in the world so the hobbyist needs to not be an idiot and fly his multi-rotor around trigger happy, paranoid, government fearing land owners. Your just asking for a problem. Also use some frikin judgement and don't fly in a manner that is going to make people any more suspicious than they already are about things they dont understand or in a manner that could potentially put other people in physical danger. (i.e dont hover in peoples yards, around windows, around unsuspecting persons, etc)
If there is some specific flight activity you want to do on/over someone's land...would it really be that hard to ask the land owner first to avoid any potential issues?

- the land owner, the multi-rotor or other flying craft that might be flying over your land does not require shooting. You may think you have the right to shoot stuff because you own land and its over it...but chances are you'd be in the wrong for doing so. You have many other avenues to pursue to prevent further overflights of your property if you so desire. All can be performed without a gun. Chances are..a calm and simple request to the r/c pilot asking "please do not fly over my property" would be abided by. (at least by a pilot with a sense of decency)
Out here in Nebraska, flights are consistently over the wide open land and property of others. If any of them asked me specifically not to fly over their land..I would gladly work with them.

Everyone needs to get along. If the media doesn't kill our hobby or the FAA doesn't kill us through regulation, we will end up killing ourselves.

 

[Visioneer]

To think that in the year 2014 people want to run around shooting at **** in the air just because they believe they can if its over their land...wow

I apologize in advance for somewhat co-opting this thread, but the following is certainly related to many posts on this forum.

I have the same reaction. I am repeatedly astounded by many folks' "understanding" of the law (and I'm not just talking about internet posters).

But then I stop and think ... why would they know better? I went to a highly rated high school ... there wasn't one law course given there. I went to a very good engineering school ... I took one law course there, primarily directed at professional ethics and teaching us when we likely needed a lawyer, but very little about the laws themselves.

What little(?) I know about the law (other than traffic regulations which one must study to get a license) is from the media (which typically covers the laws only when one is passed or broken - possibly a suspect source), from what I've pursued on my own (usually because of something I was involved in, or was told that didn't make sense), from friends who happen to be lawyers, and from a municipal law orientation course I took when elected to a small city council. Nothing from a mainstream, everyone must take this, perspective.

It strikes me as a glaring failure of our educational system. Everyone is expected to know the law (and abide by it) but we make no effort to educate citizens on our basic laws (absent various licensing procedures).

 

[OI Photography]

It strikes me as a glaring failure of our educational system. Everyone is expected to know the law (and abide by it) but we make no effort to educate citizens on our basic laws (absent various licensing procedures).

I've heard that sentiment somewhere before...

"There’s no point in acting surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now. … What do you mean you’ve never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh, for heaven’s sake, mankind, it’s only four light years away, you know. I’m sorry, but if you can’t be bothered to take an interest in local affairs, that’s your own lookout. Energize the demolition beams" -Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[mtnmanchuck]

Just any FYI, This proposed law was "Aimed" (pun intended) at GOVERNMENT drones. Not a private or recreational remote controlled quad copters.

The sentiment the citizens were trying to make is keep the **** government from spying on me with drones..


Just my 2 cents worth...