Posted on 09/01/2016 9:57:26 AM PDT by Impala64ssa
"It came over my airspace, 25 or 30 feet above my trees, and hovered for a second. I blasted it to smithereens."
A woman in Virginia shot down a drone flying near her property in June of this year. It's at least the third time this has happened in the U.S., with previous incidents in Kentucky and Tennessee.
Originally reported in the local Fauquier Times and subsequently covered by Ars Technica, the shooter was Jennifer Youngman, a neighbor to actor and director Robert Duvall. She had been cleaning her shotguns on the porch when two men stopped on a nearby road and started flying a drone around the general vicinity. Youngman left the drone alone while it flew around nearby fields, but prepared to take it down and ultimately did when it flew over her land.
As she told Ars Technica:
I loaded my shotgun and took the safety off, and this thing came flying over my trees. I don't know if they lost command or if they didn't have good command, but the wind had picked up. It came over my airspace, 25 or 30 feet above my trees, and hovered for a second. I blasted it to smithereens.
Shooting down drones is a bit of a legal gray area in the United States at the moment. Opponents point out that, according to FAA classifications, drones are technical aircraft and interfering with the flight of one is a federal crime. So far no shooters have been prosecuted on the federal level. In fact other drone shooters, like William Merideth, have ultimately been cleared of all charges, though the owner of that drone is still pursuing a civil suit for $1,500 in damages.
To her credit, Youngman told Ars Technica that she went about shooting down the drone with 7.5 birdshot, which is both the most effective way to take a drone out of the sky, but also ensures that the projectiles won't do any harm on the way down. The drone, however, still can. Youngman said the crash left "two punctures in [her] lawn tractor."
The best way to avoid that might be to not shoot down the thing down in the first place.
You’re welcome.
=^)
CC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNPJMk2fgJU
(Yes, I know it's CGI but it's still cool.)
By definition, there is no such thing as a smithereen. They only exist in multiples, as in ‘the drone was blown to smithereens.’
I understand what you are saying.
This type of thing would vary with me. In town, You’re obviously not going to shoot one down. If a drone were flying low over my back yard, I would find the owner and get them to stop. I’d call the police if I had to.
People could very easy ‘case’ your property to see what you had they would like to steal.
In the country you can shoot them down. If someone came by my farmhouse, parked and started flying over my buildings, I’d shoot it down.
If it were flying over the back 40, trees and fields, no.
soon to be an Olympic sport - drone shooting
Shoot, shovel and shut up.
If it IS a military drone, the operator would be in a quandary as to how to explain what he was doing flying over civilian property at low altitude watching a pretty girl instead of his job..................
It’s your world nutball. Merrily blast away at whatever you see in the sky. Doesn’t bother me a bit.
You are one of two categories of freepers who I always enjoy reading the sophistry of. Those who oddly admire and rise to the defense of the WWII German military, and those who freak out about drones to the point of gunfire. Other topics are serious, but those two especially amuse me.
I hope you get one soon!
It is an invasion of privacy.
While I agree with the mission of the FAA in principle, patriots need to learn to question all actions of the corrupt federal government by first checking the Constitution to see if the states have expressly delegated to the feds the specific power to justify an action.
And in the case of the FAA, not only have the states never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution the specific power to regulate drones, but neither have the states delegated to the feds the specific power to establish the FAA.
In other words, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson had warned patriots about the corrupt federal government wrongly expanding its powers, little by little, outside the framework of the Constitution.
”I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” —James Madison, Speech at the Virginia Convention to ratify the Federal Constitution (1788-06-06)
”To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” —Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791
”The system of the General Government is to seize all doubtful ground. We must join in the scramble, or get nothing. Where first occupancy is to give right, he who lies still loses all.” —Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1797.
In the case of the FAA, it is a good example of expansion of federal powers without the required consent of the Constitution’s Article V state majority imo.
Note that it has long been impossible to reverse-engineer what the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers are based on its actions.
Wake up patriots !
The clock is ticking.
In the early ‘70s in Kansas, the AG, I think his name was Miller, filed suit against the Feds that said all air space above Kansas was the property of Kansas, therefore all laws on the ground apply to the sky. This came about because he wanted the alcohol laws in Kansas apply to aircraft flying over Kansas which means no alcohol or mixed drinks could be sold while over Kansas.
When I flew out in 1973 for AF boot camp in Texas, we could not have any alcohol while over Kansas, had to wait to get over Oklahoma before our last beer before bootcamp. LOL
Of course. But these are blatant obvious ones. And the people are nearby. For all anyone knows they are scoping out a house to see if anyone’s home to burglarize it.
This is trespass. Over peoples private property. They dont have a right to hover at windows and take pictures of what is inside, and many of these things can do exactly that.
So if any technology can keep something off the physical ground, they can come on, and roam freely around, your property? Even if its just inches?
“People could very easy ‘case’ your property to see what you had they would like to steal.”
Ahhh... the old “casing” trick. Here’s a clue. Talk to your average street cop about who is breaking in and stealing things. It isn’t the Joker and the Riddler you are up against. Its some meth addled idiot who knocks on the door. If you answer, they’ll have a fine excuse for why they are there. If you don’t, they kick in the door.
If they had the 500-2000 dollars for a drone to conduct their pre burglary reconnaissance work, they wouldn’t be out stealing. They’d be taking the drone to a pawn shop and walking out with 100 bucks of dope money.
I'm not saying she should have shot it down as she did. If the encroachment was by mistake, I would have given them time to correct. If there was a history of the activity, however, I might have acted as she did.
It would be very tough for them to prevail against her on a damage claim. Even if they did, their damages would be limited to the value of the destroyed drone. (I am a lawyer.)
That kind of drone is a slug. Racing drones with HD video and FPV ( first person view, headset makes it like you’re in the cockpit) will be orders of magnitude harder to hit. Judicious use of some fine aluminum or titanium sheet would also render it impervious to birdshot. Racers are up to 100 mph now and can perform insane maneuvers, they’ll draw 100 amps under acceleration.
I predict an increase of “self-defense drones” - a new class of drone built with the purpose of serving the private market and designed to intercept and either run off intruding drones or take them out altogether.
Drone Warz!
“The best way to avoid that might be to not shoot down the thing down in the first place.”
Nope!
One flies over my property and STOPS and HOVERS, it has not lost commands. There is, somewhere, sumbitch looking through the camera lens at me.
I have the right to privacy, since I DID NOT SIGN ANY KIND OF WAIVER NEGATING SUCH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!
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.