8 years ago
42
Kentucky man shoots down drone spying on 16-year-old daughter
Drone pilots take notice: The world is not your playground.
Continue Reading
http://www.dailydot.com
Additional Contributions:
-
+4Submitted 8 years ago by GeniusIComeAnon
-
+3Submitted 8 years ago by TheDreamingMonk
-
+2Submitted 8 years ago by TheDreamingMonk
-
+1Submitted 8 years ago by imokruok
Join the Discussion
Wow. This is beyond ridiculous. And to think the man is charged when those asshats are clearly to blame. I hope the judge will see the situation clearly.
I'm not defending the drone pilots here, but is it ever okay to fire a shotgun into the air in a residential area? That's dangerous right? And threatening to shoot the pilot and his friends, that's surely not okay either.
Firing a shotgun into the air won't hurt anything. If you fire a gun with a bullet, then the projectile can actually kill a person when it comes down, but shotgun pellets are harmless after 75 yards or so. This was justified. I'm a dad and if someone were peeping on my daughter they would have a really bad day.
A falling drone, especially one that's damaged and hard to control, would be very dangerous to bystanders. The birdshot is only "harmless" on its own, when it isn't bringing down a drone with a bunch of spinning blades attached.
Birdshot has a very low ballistic coefficient, and slows down rapidly due to air resistance. When it falls back to earth, it's basically like throwing a handful of BBs at someone from across a room. Except even smaller and lighter than BB gun BBs. They don't even penetrate tree leaves. This is why you use a 20 ga. shotgun to hunt squirrels sitting in trees. It's very safe (for everyone except the squirrel), whereas even a .22 bullet will retain a lot of energy at long distances. This guy picked the exact right tool for the job.
So what's the ballistic coefficient of the drone, and how much kinetic energy will it have when it drops to the ground?
No you're right, there was excess in his acts. I feel the situation would've made me more than a little unnerved. Enough to do something not that logical. They invaded their home, with something that's alien, speedy and not quite reachable easily. And they where oogling my daughter. That would definitely introduce panic in my demeanor as well.
Don't you remember Bush SHOT someone with birdshot and it was laughed off. Would ave shot the drone myself, it's as much an invasion as a person sitting in my lawn filming my daughter in person would be.
I'm pretty sure you're thinking of Cheney, not Bush. He shot Harry Whittington during a quail hunting trip in 2006. There's a pretty big difference though in someone being shot while out hunting and discharging a firearm in a residential area. I don't have a good idea what the neighborhood they're in is like, however. If they're sitting on an acre or two of land, I'm not sure I can argue with this. If there's another house a few steps away, maybe shooting into the sky isn't the best way to solve the issue.
Yes, that one, sorry, but the decade does fly by. Shooting into the sky pretty much always is going to bring some type of risk. It was stated that the drone was seen hovering over a neighbors house then moved to his backyard over a pool. The houses were easily a stones throw away from each other. Suburbia. This makes shooting skyward the best option. Again, birdshot, was really the best option outside of rock salt. Not many keep that handy, though personally I would suggest a shotgun with it if its planned for home defense. That's enough to deter most anything at 25 yards. Except bears, but you know what to do if you are in that territory.
The drone pilots released a video of the flight data of the drone. It consistently stays above 200 feet and only goes over his house for a second. This is just a case of a paranoid man with a gun. Don't be so quick to just believe one side of the story.
No video from the downed drone?
Not that I've seen. It's entirely possible it wasn't recording, was damaged in the crash, or that it didn't have a camera at all.
What the actual fuck? I am all for Drone pilots and general "drone advocacy", but that's just objectively wrong. The man deserved his drone being shot down. It's people like him who spoil it for the rest.
And to believe those guys had the audacity to show up at the mans property. A guy with a gun just shot down your spying drone. You are going to just walk over there?
It's not a "spying drone", it's just a quadracopter. They showed footage of the flight path, and in it you can clearly see that the drone was just flying over his house, it never stopped over it, it never hovered, and it was far too high up to really see people on the ground. He's just a paranoid man that waited outside with a gun so he could shoot down someone else's property. Then he had the gall to threaten them when they wanted to retrieve something that belongs to them.
Really? Of course I know its not a "spying drone". I meant a drone that is spying. Being a quadracopter and spying are not mutually exclusive. What ridiculous pedantry.
And the rest makes sense. I checked out the video and he seems to have a good argument. Though 193 feet isn't ridiculously high. Thats only a little over half a football field. Still very easy to be spying from.
I suppose you could be spying form 200 feet, but it doesn't seem terribly likely that that was the purpose when they were flying over so quickly.
There is no could about it. It is easy to spy from 200 feet. That's not a long distance.
Edit: Looking back, this isn't really that true. I mean, sure, if you are intentionally trying to spy, I am sure you could upgrade your camera so that its great for spying, but on a normal drone camera, it's probably not good enough.
Um, what would go in place of could? Unless you want me to say "was"? I wasn't saying maybe, I was saying that it's easily possible, but doesn't appear to be the case in this instance.
Sorry, the italicized made it sound like you were saying it was difficult or something, in conjunction with your earlier statement " it was far too high up to really see people on the ground" which implies that you believe 65 yards is hard to film from.
Ah, okay. I really just meant you can't see people terribly clearly from that high. People are just kind of colorful specks at that point. Mainly because from above you only see people's heads.
I guess. This is all really just pedantry. Sorry for arguing.
It's fine.
Good for him! That is unacceptable. I'd do the same thing.
I may be in the minority here, but I agree with the arrest. For one, the flight recorder information has already been released, and the drone never was below 190 feet, and was moving very quickly. It was not spying on his teenage daughters nor hovering 10 feet over his house, all of which has been claimed previously. You can watch the video of the flight recorder info here: http://www.wdrb.com/story/29670583/update-dro...s-produces-video-claiming-to-show-flight-path
You see that large field behind the Merideth's property? That's where they were flying, and they flew over their house (or maybe it's their friends? They were all in the back yard together). The flight data shows that they hit the edge of the property line and then the other side of it, exiting, in less than 2 seconds, at a height of 190 something feet.
I don't know anything about what is legal or not regarding shooting private aircraft like this, but judging by the recent explosion in popularity of flying these things, we're going to hear a lot about it. So far, every case I've heard has ruled against the shooters. If those Amazon delivery drones took off, you better believe there'd be few people siding with the shooters.
So as a father, I absolutely would side with someone shooting a drone of a peeping tom, or a peeping tom themselves even if they were on my property, but that isn't what happened here. He got arrested for discharging a firearm in a residential area, wanton endangerment, and that's clear cut. As to why he did it, it was in passion, but still wrong.
I'm not a hunter, my question is does bird shot have the range to carry enough force to shoot something out of the sky at a height of 190 feet?
Realistically, it wouldn't blow the drone to pieces. However, it doesn't take much damage to destabilize a qaudracopter. If the shot managed to so much as damage one propeller it would go down. It also appears to travel a fair bit as it's crashing, so that's likely what happened.
Thanks. It seemed liked quite a distance to make the shot but I never considered how fragile the drone might be.
No problem! I have slight familiarity with them, so I thought I'd offer any insight I can give.
Instead of replying to every comment siding with the man in the story, I'll just copy what I said here. The drone pilots released a video of the flight data of the drone. It consistently stays above 200 feet and is shot down the second it goes over his house. He was clearly waiting for it. This is just a case of a paranoid man with a gun. Don't be so quick to just believe one side of the story.
[This comment was removed]
I'm as much of a lily-livered, bleeding-heart, liberal, egghead communist as the next guy and I'm all for gun control, but I'm totally with the armed man in this case. As explained a couple times in this thread, birdshot is harmless on the way back down. He was justified.
Except that the video of the flight path clearly shows that the drone was over his house for seconds. The man with the gun had to have been waiting for it to pass. He's just paranoid that a drone flying quickly over his house at 200 feet up was somehow spying on his daughter.
Drones are spooky.
Nope, I think he's entirely justified in shooting that drone. If it was a burglar casing the join it wouldn't have been an issue he'd have been celebrated. He should challenge it and find out if the guy was recording because surely that counts as the dude creating indecent images of children?
Actually the drone went over the house for mere seconds. There was no way he was recording the girl, and likely didn't even know she was there. He was not justified in the slightest, he's just extremely paranoid or just doesn't like technology.
going on the article -
""It was just right there. It was hovering. I would never have shot it if it was flying," William Merideth said in an interview with Ars Technica. "When he came down with a video camera right over my back deck, that's not going to work."
Merideth claims that the drone was first spotted hovering over his neighbor's house—a claim his neighbor confirms—and he had no intentions of taking any actions against it until it entered onto his own property. Merideth's 16-year-old daughter was laying out by their pool at the time, and when the drone pilot decided to stop his vehicle and get an electronic eyeful, he decided enough was enough. "
Okay, but that's just what the guy is claiming; that doesn't make it true. On the other side we have a video of the flight path and it very clearly does not hover, but flies over, and not at deck level, but at a couple hundred feet up. He's either paranoid or using his daughter as an excuse.
Don't worry, I read the article :P I just think the guy is stretching a number of details. In the video of the flight path, the drone is about 200 feet in the air, and merely flies over both his and his neighbors house. It never stops, and it never drops below 190 feet.
yes so look at this way, 11 hours ago there was only that initial article for me to look at. no flight plans or other side of the story.
Ah, gotcha, that makes sense! I didn't look at when the update was.