- Joined
- Sep 3, 2015
- Messages
- 324
- Reaction score
- 127
- Age
- 66
Kevlar for your Phantom
- Thread starter B- Scene Films
- Start date
This just proves how corrupt the system is . She has now let all the dumb people have open game in anything flying in the sky no matter where you are . Firing a gun in city limits is ok now . I can't wait to see all the shot down UAV's from Walmart & Amazon if the FAA lets them move us forward . Maybe about 10years when all the old back in the day die off we will move forward .
The Walmart drone delivering my toilet paper BETTER NOT be shot down...
Well, at least in that county/city.
Personally I think this is an example of a judge ignoring the law in order to make her own point.
1) flying below a tree line is not automatically harassment.
2) 3 times in a year is not harassment
3) Regardless, you should not be discharging a gun unless you are in fear of your life. It should _never_ be an answer to something you just don't like (be it legal or not).
#3 is what gets me. Its a sad, sad day when even a judge can over-look the law in fear of something that she fears but is legal.
I have no issue with the city/county looking into a drone operator harassing someone but discharging a firearm at a drone because you _think_ its in violation of your rights? How in heck does a judge think this is the proper was to take care of the issue?
Boggs _needs_ to file in small claims court for the damage to the drone in order to get something on the books showing a person is still responsible for property damage.
I doubt they will do it but the prosecutor _really_ needs to appeal this judges decision. Not because a drone was involved but because this ruling indicates that its okay to shoot at things you don't like.
I would have liked to see what would have happened if that stray bullet landed on someones head and killed them
Yes but in this case, it was a shotgun. The pellets don't travel far, and it looks like the guy lived at the edge of an open area. Assuming he fired in that direction, it should not hit anyone. But, it was still illegal to fire a gun in city limits for reasons other than self defense (as well as wrong... If the drone really was 200 feet up passing by, there is no good reason to shoot it).
Sent via Tapatalk on my Android phone. Good news; Tapatalk sucks less than it used to.
According to this Judge Judy... self defense of being harassed applies. She probably wanted a week off. Just let each person dish out their own law in the form of a gun.
Flip some off in Bullitt KS... shotgun time!
Anyone for a trip to the Bullitt County Middle School for some drone shooting? Appears we should be within out rights as long as we claim we felt harassed. Screw those 7th graders and there drones!
Learning takes flight with Bullitt County drone program
Learning takes flight with Bullitt County drone program
This happened in the Phoenix area around 10 years back. I'm not sure what the law was on shooting gun in city limits prior. But what happened is a young girl walked outside her home and a stray bullet that some idiot shot up in the air came down on her head and she died. After that it was well known this is illegal to shoot guns in town unless you have extraordinatry circumstances.
The verdict in this case is being followed by many people. Sadly she sided with the gun nut. This will give so many people just when they need to open fire on drones. I doubt I'll take my drone to any lakes around here or atleast fly it so high nobody can see it or they'll think its cool to open fire.
If he was up 200 feet why didn't he just upload his flight log and then prove it to everyone? I think he was alot closer than 200 feet. The quad was no threat that needed to be shot down immediately.
Other cases of drones or quads shot down will happen because of this. Not every judge is going to have a gun fetish and side with gun owners. This will get confusing in the future as who is in the right here.
He did make a video showing the flight log. I am not sure if he did anything else. If that had been me, I would have uploaded the raw data as well as any flight video I had. He says the SD card was not in the drone after the crash. But my GO app keeps a low res copy... Is there a reason his setup would not have had that? I am new to this so perhaps he didn't have the feature.
I suppose he may have faked the data. Is that easy to fake? The format looks encrypted somehow but I haven't put any thought into how someone would extract the data, modify it then put it back into the source file.
Sent via Tapatalk on my Android phone. Good news; Tapatalk sucks less than it used to.
He did have the log. However, the judge heard from 2 witnesses who stated it was at tree top level.
I'm sure most of us have heard about how eye witness reports can be very unreliable (even without intending to be), plus all the experiments that have been done to back that up. I would trust the witness of technology (the log file) over two people who claim "tree top level". I could easily picture different inexperienced observers making claims about a drone being anywhere from 50 to 200 feet being "tree top level". Besides, the drone shooter originally claimed it was at "10 feet" and that it was below the level of some canopy, etc. That's a pretty huge discrepancy between "tree top level" and 200 feet reported by a log. It can't all be correct.
Unless the log was faked, I'd consider it far more reliable than observers. (And I guess he might have faked it. He released the video of the log a day or so after the initial news report, so it wasn't a lot of time to figure out how to fake it, unless he already knew how.) Someone has to be lying. I'd be inclined to think the shooter is more likely to be the one lying... he already demonstrated that he's hot headed and eager to break the law for what is not actually physically threatening him, even if it was lower than it should be.
If the shot was aimed well up, Into the air, Dropping bullets can only travel at the speed that gravity pulls them down at. ;-)
RedHotPoker
RedHotPoker
Where is the FAA on this? They classify my Phantom as an aircraft for enforcement purposes, and soon, registration purposes. It's a felony to shoot at an aircraft, isn't it?
Similar threads
