Posted on 08/01/2015 11:31:04 AM PDT by Enlightened1
A father has been arrested after shooting down an $1,800 drone that was reportedly hovering over his two sunbathing daughters.
William H. Merideth, 47, from Kentucky was charged with first-degree criminal mischief and first-degree wanton endangerment.
The owner of the drone claims he was only trying to take pictures of a friend's house when Merideth shot at the device, sending it crashing into a field near his yard last weekend.
Sunday afternoon, the kids – my girls – were out on the back deck, and the neighbors were out in their yard," Merideth told WDRD. 'And they come in and said, "Dad, there’s a drone out here, flying over everybody’s yard."
'I went and got my shotgun and I said, "I'm not going to do anything unless it's directly over my property,"' he added.
At that time, the drone was hovering over the house of a neighbor, Kim VanMater, who has a 16-year-old daughter who likes to lay out by the pool.
VanMeter said: '(The drone) was just hovering above our house and it stayed for a few moments and then my daughter finally waved and it took off.'
It then allegedly flew over the Merideths' garden.
Mr Merideth said: 'Within a minute or so, here it came. It was hovering over top of my property, and I shot it out of the sky. I didn't shoot across the road, I didn't shoot across my neighbor's fences, I shot directly into the air.'
Four men were about to confront him after the drone was shot out of the sky, but he says they soon changed their minds when they saw his firearms.
'I had my Glock on me and they started toward me and I told them, "If you cross my sidewalk, there's gonna be another shooting,"'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Shoot ‘em down! Same with kites.
You keep saying that but I've yet to see one shred of proof that supports your assertion.
So far, the only one spreading crap on this thread, is you.
The facts are, if he was operating commercially, he's subject to the same rules and regs as any manned aircraft, namely that the PIC be a certificated pilot, (sport aviation, private, commercial) that the UAV have a current certificate of airworthiness, that he operates purely by VLOS, (not FPV as that is expressly forbidden in commercial ops) that he holds a letter from the FAA granting him permission to fly commercially, and that he not operate his UAV within 500' of any person, vehicle or structure without permission and if he does cross the 500' boundary, which certainly sounds like he did, then he is to cease operations immediately, whcih certainly sounds like he didn't.
You keep saying that he was legal, so which part of these regs did he not break by his operations? If you've got the facts that are contrary to those in this story, post them. It's high time to put up, or shut up, Little Billy.
Only if the jury votes to convict.
If I'm sitting on a jury for a case like this, I'd vote to acquit regardless of the facts of the case.
The guilty party isn't the guy who shot down the drone. The guilty party is the drone operator who flew over peoples' houses without permission.
The FARs for commercial UAV operations are very clear and the same for manned aircraft. This yahoo was buzzing houses and if any pilot of a manned aircraft did that he'd be grounded for life and facing hefty fines by the FAA.
As Little Billy is saying, he's a commercial UAV operator and was out on his second flight. If I were this drone pilot, I'd be laying low and hoping the FAA doesn't find out about this little stunt.
You are DELUSIONAL. My initial assertions about the case at hand are clearly posted in numerous (but differing) news reports that showed the Shooter was in the wrong and that the telemetry and video of the Pilot supported everything that I’ve asserted. SECONDLY, in your pathological effort to “always be right”, it seems you’ve ‘Googled stuff’ to appear knowledgeable when, in fact, actual UAV Ops such as myself can see right through you. MAYBE, just MAYBE you fly a ten inch Quad and have fast Google skills... But I’m calling you out as a PHONEY.
(Please tell me that I’m not the only Drone flying FReeper who can see through this guy. Please?)
Ah, you must mean the drone owner's account?
Drone owner disputes shooter's story; produces video he claims shows flight path:
The owner of the drone, David Boggs, just released the flight data recorder from his iPad, saying it tracks the drone's path. In a video Boggs sent WDRB, he comments on drone's path 40 seconds before, during and after the incident.
"We are now one minute and 18 seconds into the flight," he says on the video. "We are now 193 feet above the ground. This area here is the world-famous drone slayer home, and this is a neighbor's home, and our friends live over here, and over here, and over here. You will see now that we did not go below this altitude -- we even went higher -- nor did we hover over their house to look in. And for sure didn't descend down to no 10 feet, or look under someone's canopy, or at somebody's daughter."
"We are right now one minute, 56 seconds over the drone slayer's house. We're still not on his property line -- we're just now getting ready to cross it....In less than two seconds...we are outside of his property, still at 272 feet. He shot the drone here, and you'll see it rapidly lose altitude, and the drone crash. Boom -- there it goes. Crazy, in the words of the great Paul Harvey, now you know the rest of the story."
What do the FARs say about operating a aircraft, manned or unmanned at altitudes below 500' over a populated area?
By Boggs' own admission he's busting regs. He's flying his drone 193' over a neighbor's house. According to the FARs that's buzzing. Operating a commercial UAV is no different than operating a manned aircraft within 500' of any person, vehicle or structure is expressly forbidden.
I certainly hope the FAA gets a hold of this guy and tears him a new one. As any pilot will attest, the FAA is not happy until you're not happy.
Well, Little Billy, by Baggs' own admission he was busting regs.
He's not allowed to fly below 500' over any person, vehicle or structure and he flew over all three as low as 193'.
I realize a load of buckshot is good for shooting flying objects being a long time waterfowl hunter. However, I also know that discharging such in urban areas doesn’t go very well. I think I would have tried using my pellet rifle. Much more fun but still wrought with lawful restrictions.
===== Um, Dan, you seriously are insane, delusional, or ... Yeah... Whatever. You clearly don't know what you're talking about, yet keep pushing it. Well, whatever... Please enlighten us further about laws pertaining to video recording vs distribution of persons on private property. 3, 2, 1.... GO!
>> the telemetry info
Are you disputing the coordinates of the drone the moment it was fired upon?
BTW, tree branches stemming from the neighbor’s property can be cut without permission. I image the same would hold true for not-rooted objects.
No, I do know what I'm talking about.
I've been a certificated pilot since 2002 and flying R/C since 1982, and judging from your petulant attitude, Little Billy, probably longer than you've been alive.
But, go ahead. Keep defending the drone operator. Clowns of a feather flock together.
See? This is where FR is divided from the men to the boys (SpurtzHeads). "Flaming"? Puhlease. Grow up, Junior. Ya see, kid, the problem you have is assuming stuff. I don't particularly like you, so I'm not gonna give you any free consultation. You just keep on "assuming" and "presuming". Then, keep on pretending to be a "Republican/Conservative/WhateverYourParentsAre" and disconnect yourself and thought and ATTACK!! (...cuz that's SO not "Liberal douche behavior".)
I'll be here on FR long before you grow a pair. oh, wait... Smiley faces
Well, Little Billy, by Baggs' own admission he was busting regs. He's not allowed to fly below 500' over any person, vehicle or structure and he flew over all three as low as 193'
≠========≠
You just keep posting and posting. Fine. You win. I STRONGLY encourage you to repeat your facts. Stick with it; go for it. Nerdy loser strangers on FR will believe you and, maybe, adore you.
There are two sides to every story.
The flame count is above 50. Trying for a record? Looks like EVERYONE except you is in the wrong. Wrong!
Won’t take long til you step over the line. Keep pushing that envelope, the zot will be enjoyed.
A very worthwhile adage is to quit digging when your in a hole. Shite for brains are not able to see past their nose.
You claim to be in Texas, just have to be one of the geeks from up north or kalifornicate migrating around Moscow on the Colorado, who still has your Uhaul receipt in your back pocket. Enjoy the short stay.
I’ll summarize the week: “Kill drones, not lions.”
I think it's better to shoot the drone than to shoot the drone operator.
Yes, I saw that. Thus, my believing it was voyeuristic.
As others have said, if the homeowners had been notified and the pilot had asked permission to invade their privacy, there may have been a different outcome.
That said, there are those here who do not agree and never will, regardless of what is said.
The drone pilot did what he wanted, where he wanted and to whom he wanted. The homeowner did not want him or his surrogate in his yard or looking at his children. Bound to be messy.
Funny how a few manners may have changed the events.
Are you in the habit of using your drones to harass and annoy your neighbors?
If so, that is rather telling on your “understanding” of property rights.
I don’t suppose it occurred to the operator to keep his “toy” either on his own property or on *public* property, and not his neighbors’ properties.
“I don’t suppose it occurred to the operator to keep his “toy” either on his own property or on *public* property, and not his neighbors’ properties.”
Evidently it never occurred to Mr. Merideth that he had no right to discharge a firearm inside city limits. Nor, did it occur to Mr. Merideth that he had no right to destroy someone’s property.
You do not have right to the airspace over your property and you have no expectation of privacy outside your home.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.