"Drone Slayer" not charged

[bbfpv]

Judge doesn't feel it was a federal matter? I'm actually kind of surprised.

Judge rules in favor of “Drone Slayer,” dismisses lawsuit filed by pilot

 

[GMack]

FAA had no response to the federal court (They seem distant on this drone skeet shooting practice anyways, and more interested in $150 licenses and fines for dollars, imho.). Had they spoke up, maybe the outcome would be different. Maybe he'll take it to the state court on appeal.

For now, it's open season on drones in Kentucky. Hunting permits soon going on sale!

 

[BigAl07]

This sets a very VERY bad precedence for our hobby.

 

[tcope]

This sets a very VERY bad precedence for our hobby.

Not really. The case was dismissed from Federal court only because they did not think it should be heard there. It's like a neighbor in KY suing in OH. The case does not belong there. There is no precedent. The only setback is that any outcome to this case would only apply in KY and not nationally. Whoever is paying the bill may not want to spend that money unless it's Federal.

 

[BigAl07]

Not really. The case was dismissed from Federal court only because they did not think it should be heard there. It's like a neighbor in KY suing in OH. The case does not belong there. There is no precedent. The only setback is that any outcome to this case would only apply in KY and not nationally. Whoever is paying the bill may not want to spend that money unless it's Federal.

I just meant a precedence in the eyes of John Q. Public. Maybe the word precedence should not have been used in this topic. This was/is a hot topic and this will give those who already want to shoot drones down more ammunition to do so (see what I did there? LOL).

We NEED one of these to make it through the court system full circle to see how it plays out and to see exactly what, if anything, the FAA brings to the table.

 

[sar104]

How would this be dealt with if he had shot at a manned aircraft? If the FAA position is that drones are aircraft, then presumably the legal process should follow a similar path.

 

[BigAl07]

How would this be dealt with if he had shot at a manned aircraft? If the FAA position is that drones are aircraft, then presumably the legal process should follow a similar path.

I'm inclined to agree with you completely on this but I guess the FAA doesn't.

 

[sar104]

I'm inclined to agree with you completely on this but I guess the FAA doesn't.

There might need to be a reporting process to the FAA for them to become involved. In the case of a manned aircraft that may be via the NTSB, so I wonder if they were ever formally notified in this case.

 

[BigAl07]

There might need to be a reporting process to the FAA for them to become involved. In the case of a manned aircraft that may be via the NTSB, so I wonder if they were ever formally notified in this case.

Good question. Guess I'll reach our to my liaison with the FAA and see what he has to offer if anything.

 

[Helihover]

To my understanding the FAA was not classifying UAV's as aircraft at the time of this shooting. I could be wrong, but if not, I would have thrown this out too.

It looks as if they are forming this case around trespassing too, which again has no place in Federal court.

I would think that any matters like this in the future would have to have the FAA involved. They would need to testify in court stating that a UAV is in fact an aircraft. Once that's done, this nonsense will stop.

 

[tcope]

To my understanding the FAA was not classifying UAV's as aircraft at the time of this shooting. I could be wrong, but if not, I would have thrown this out too.

That classification was handed down by the NTSB in the pinker case (2014. Well before this KY case (2016).

 

[BigAl07]

I spoke with our friend at the FAA today about this. He said, "It's not up to the FAA to decide in situations like this. When (if) it's reported to the FAA it is handed over to the FBI. They ultimately decide how to handle the case.

"UAS are aircraft and as such, shooting one down is shooting down an aircraft. That criminal activity falls under the jurisdiction of the FBI."

 

[sar104]

I spoke with our friend at the FAA today about this. He said, "It's not up to the FAA to decide in situations like this. When (if) it's reported to the FAA it is handed over to the FBI. They ultimately decide how to handle the case.

"UAS are aircraft and as such, shooting one down is shooting down an aircraft. That criminal activity falls under the jurisdiction of the FBI."

So that does suggest that it needs to be reported to the FAA first. It's not clear to me that happened in this case.

 

[DefiantChild]

It was a simple tort case that should have been heard in small claims court. I find it curious that the matter was filed in federal court and wonder what plaintiff's real agenda was?

 

[BigAl07]

So that does suggest that it needs to be reported to the FAA first. It's not clear to me that happened in this case.

That's exactly right. Report it to the FAA first and let them get involved on the front side then it sounds like the FBI would (hopefully) come into the fold and take it from there. At least if the FAA gets involved up front they can put their input in before things get "muddy".

It was a simple tort case that should have been heard in small claims court. I find it curious that the matter was filed in federal court and wonder what plaintiff's real agenda was?

Exactly how is a FELONY offense belong in a small claims court? I'm missing the logic there.

 

[sar104]

That's exactly right. Report it to the FAA first and let them get involved on the front side then it sounds like the FBI would (hopefully) come into the fold and take it from there. At least if the FAA gets involved up front they can put their input in before things get "muddy".



Exactly how is a FELONY offense belong in a small claims court? I'm missing the logic there.

The complication is, presumably, that this was a civil complaint brought by the injured party, rather than a criminal prosecution for a felony brought by the feds.

 

[DefiantChild]

Exactly how is a FELONY offense belong in a small claims court? I'm missing the logic there.

Apparently law enforcement disagrees that a felony occurred. Otherwise it would have been prosecuted. That did not prevent the pilot from seeking compensation for his loss which he was entitled to do as a civil matter.

 

[MTH]

I wonder if "Shannon's law" would apply for any such cases in Arizona. Shannon's law refers to specific changes in Arizona statutes, enacted in 2000, making it a felony offense to discharge firearms randomly into the air. And I wonder how many other states have such laws.

But then there is the defence, I wasn't shooting randomly I was shooting at that drone.

 

[dronesky]

I spoke with our friend at the FAA today about this. He said, "It's not up to the FAA to decide in situations like this. When (if) it's reported to the FAA it is handed over to the FBI. They ultimately decide how to handle the case.

"UAS are aircraft and as such, shooting one down is shooting down an aircraft. That criminal activity falls under the jurisdiction of the FBI."

Do you know if it was reported to the FAA?

 

[BigAl07]

Do you know if it was reported to the FAA?

I do not. My "assumption" (we all know how dangerous that is) is that it was NOT but that's my assumption.

If I have one shot down I'll be on the phone with the FAA and FBI before local LE gets on scene unless they are already there LOL.