# Kentucky Man Shoots Drone, Gets Arrested **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 31, 2015, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kentucky-man-shoots-drone-gets-arrested/726634 "2015-07-31T06:38:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2015, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kentucky-man-shoots-drone-gets-arrested/726634/321 "2015-08-09T17:32:21Z")
I’m certain you are a very responsible UAS pilot. When I was working for my SEL ticket, a flight instructor advised me that if I ever flew over mountains at night, to follow lit roads so that if the engine pooped out, I could see somewhere to land. That’s a very responsible practice, but it isn’t required by the FAA. Flying at a predetermined range similarly simply isn’t a requirement. It is not in your cite. And you keep saying that this wasn’t a recreational flight, but your evidence for this is nothing more than one of your posts stating he was taking photos for a real estate sale. I can’t find a single news story that backs that up. In fact, one of the original stories said that the drone operator showed the reporter a text message from a friend in Las Vegas who asked the operator to check up on his house. That is clearly a recreational activity, no different than someone wanting to get a nice picture of a sunset or a nice tree. You just haven’t produced cites that actually say what you have claimed. That’s not a reflection of your expertise with UAS. It just means you aren’t presenting a defendable position, at least so far. ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2015, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kentucky-man-shoots-drone-gets-arrested/726634/322 "2015-08-09T17:55:12Z")
Ravenmann, I read the real estate thing someplace, but it may be hearsay. No argument there. I do sometimes go outside the FAA guidelines. The airplane is sent to photograph an inaccessible location. That does not endanger persons or property. There’s nobody out there. The line of site requirement was put on by a naïve Congress. You cannot control a model as far as you can see it. Often the safest way to get it back is to put it on automatic. The FAA definitions are stringent. Checking out a house is not recreation. In any case nobody is going to ask me! Crane ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2015, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kentucky-man-shoots-drone-gets-arrested/726634/323 "2015-08-09T18:11:34Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > The FAA definitions are stringent. Checking out a house is not recreation. The FAA uses the dictionary definition of “hobby” and “recreation” - that is, activities taken “taken outside of one’s profession engaged in especially for relaxation.” How is flying a drone at 290 feet for maybe a quarter mile on a weekend to look at a friend’s house not something done for enjoyment and relaxation? ---
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2015, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kentucky-man-shoots-drone-gets-arrested/726634/324 "2015-08-09T19:05:27Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > The FAA uses the dictionary definition of “hobby” and “recreation” - that is, activities taken “taken outside of one’s profession engaged in especially for relaxation.” > > How is flying a drone at 290 feet for maybe a quarter mile on a weekend to look at a friend’s house not something done for enjoyment and relaxation? Even assuming that he was taking pictures of his friends house for a real estate sale, if he’s not charging his friend for the pictures, is it still commercial? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2015, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kentucky-man-shoots-drone-gets-arrested/726634/325 "2015-08-09T19:10:18Z")
> [@Sinaptics](#): > > Even assuming that he was taking pictures of his friends house for a real estate sale, if he’s not charging his friend for the pictures, is it still commercial? I’m not certain, but I think it would likely be considered non-recreational. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2015, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kentucky-man-shoots-drone-gets-arrested/726634/326 "2015-08-09T19:24:50Z")
The 6/18/2014 FAA [Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft](http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf). Note the conundrum, as noted on page 6, regarding Section 336 restricting the ability of the FAA to promulgate new rules. Also note their distinctions between commercial and recreational use on pages 9 through 11. Checking in on a friend’s house, like taking photographs for personal use and viewing a field to determine whether crops need water when they are grown for personal enjoyment, are recreational activities. Taking pictures of a house to advertise it for sale is commercial. That said it does seem that a FAA extant rule on not within 500 feet of a dwelling may apply … this they state, may “enforcement action when conducted unsafely.” So it may be that the FAA has cause to come down on the operator and definitely has cause to come down on the shooter … shooting at aircraft is not something the FAA generally looks the other way at. Will they make a … Federal case … about it? They could and probably should in both instances. And yes I have little doubt that a Federal court would find the shooter guilty. And the FAA has [previously](http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_23693787/faa-warns-public-against-shooting-guns-at-drones) stated they will take on these cases: > [@](#): > > People who fire guns at drones are endangering the public and property and could be prosecuted or fined, the Federal Aviation Administration warned Friday. > The FAA released a statement in response to questions about an ordinance under consideration in the tiny farming community of Deer Trail, Colo., that would encourage hunters to shoot down drones. The administration reminded the public that it regulates the nation’s airspace, including the airspace over cities and towns. > > A drone “hit by gunfire could crash, causing damage to persons or property on the ground, or it could collide with other objects in the air,” the statement said. “Shooting at an unmanned aircraft could result in criminal or civil liability, just as would firing at a manned airplane.” This seems like a perfect case for them, both reinforcing that shooting at drones will not be tolerated and, without directly weighing in on privacy reinforcing the 500 feet from dwellings guideline. The operators get fined and the shooter gets a short sentence in the Fed Pen. ---
**Author:** ![Pork\_Rind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pork_rind/32/111_2.png) [@Pork\_Rind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pork_Rind)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2015, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kentucky-man-shoots-drone-gets-arrested/726634/327 "2015-08-09T20:42:07Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > The 6/18/2014 FAA [Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft](http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf). > > Note the conundrum, as noted on page 6, regarding Section 336 restricting the ability of the FAA to promulgate new rules. Also note their distinctions between commercial and recreational use on pages 9 through 11. Checking in on a friend’s house, like taking photographs for personal use and viewing a field to determine whether crops need water when they are grown for personal enjoyment, are recreational activities. Taking pictures of a house to advertise it for sale is commercial. > > That said it does seem that a FAA extant rule on not within 500 feet of a dwelling may apply … this they state, may “enforcement action when conducted unsafely.” > > So it may be that the FAA has cause to come down on the operator and definitely has cause to come down on the shooter … shooting at aircraft is not something the FAA generally looks the other way at. > > Will they make a … Federal case … about it? They could and probably should in both instances. > > And yes I have little doubt that a Federal court would find the shooter guilty. And the FAA has [previously](http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_23693787/faa-warns-public-against-shooting-guns-at-drones) stated they will take on these cases: > > This seems like a perfect case for them, both reinforcing that shooting at drones will not be tolerated and, without directly weighing in on privacy reinforcing the 500 feet from dwellings guideline. The operators get fined and the shooter gets a short sentence in the Fed Pen. I’m not convinced that document claims that a drone cannot operate withing 500 of a dwelling. That section reads to me as if they’real explaining the similar rules for operation of manned aircraft. The [knowbeforeyoufly.org](http://knowbeforeyoufly.org) site (sponsored by the FAA) makes no such claim. > [@](#): > > Fly no higher than 400 feet and remain below any surrounding obstacles when possible. > Keep your sUAS in eyesight at all times, and use an observer to assist if needed. > Remain well clear of and do not interfere with manned aircraft operations, and you must see and avoid other aircraft and obstacles at all times. > Do not intentionally fly over unprotected persons or moving vehicles, and remain at least 25 feet away from individuals and vulnerable property. > Contact the airport or control tower before flying within five miles of an airport ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2015, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kentucky-man-shoots-drone-gets-arrested/726634/328 "2015-08-09T20:55:01Z")
This has gone too far. Has anyone seen one of these new selfie drones? [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/NzVPL5J3uq8/maxresdefault.jpg "Introducing the Selfie Drone! - comedy sketch") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzVPL5J3uq8) ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2015, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kentucky-man-shoots-drone-gets-arrested/726634/329 "2015-08-09T21:54:16Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > This has gone too far. Has anyone seen one of these new selfie drones? > [http://youtu.be/NzVPL5J3uq8](http://youtu.be/NzVPL5J3uq8) Even though it is a parody it’s here already. Don’t have a link but it’s a cam-drone that self navigates and homes in on the distance to a bracelet you wear while it films you from several selectable perspectives. It is waterproof (it can be dropped or land on water and take off again), and perhaps from this thread may one day be armored and have the ability to shoot back, or just perhaps film and upload the whole video of the perp before the craft is destroyed so the person shooting can be charged with the crime and also have to also repay for the destruction of personal property. Hopefully convicted of a felony so such a person can never own a firearm again, which seems appropriate for someone who obviously does not know how firearms are to be used in a society. ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2015, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kentucky-man-shoots-drone-gets-arrested/726634/330 "2015-08-09T22:01:23Z")
That’s awesome! ---
**Author:** ![Pork\_Rind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pork_rind/32/111_2.png) [@Pork\_Rind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pork_Rind)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2015, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kentucky-man-shoots-drone-gets-arrested/726634/331 "2015-08-10T00:52:47Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Even though it is a parody it’s here already. Don’t have a link but it’s a cam-drone that self navigates and homes in on the distance to a bracelet you wear while it films you from several selectable perspectives. It is waterproof (it can be dropped or land on water and take off again), and perhaps from this thread may one day be armored and have the ability to shoot back, or just perhaps film and upload the whole video of the perp before the craft is destroyed so the person shooting can be charged with the crime and also have to also repay for the destruction of personal property. Hopefully convicted of a felony so such a person can never own a firearm again, which seems appropriate for someone who obviously does not know how firearms are to be used in a society. You’real thinking of the [Lily Drone](https://www.lily.camera). The demo is pretty damn cool, but one thing they admit they don’t have is obstacle avoidance. So if it’s following you from behind and 20 feet up and you run under a tree… well, don’t. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2015, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kentucky-man-shoots-drone-gets-arrested/726634/332 "2015-08-10T11:30:09Z")
I think drones are cool, but the technology is way ahead of the regulation. Beyond the privacy issues, if recent news reports are to be believed, a major aviation tragedy almost seems inevitable, with many recent close calls reported at airports in the US and elsewhere. It’s a matter of statistics. Out of thousands or perhaps hundreds of thousands of drone hobbyists, X number of them are going to be dumb enough to fly it a dangerous manner and Y number of are going to be mischievous enough to invade privacy and disturb the proverbial sht of their neighbors. We need comprehensive federal regs ASAP. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2015, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kentucky-man-shoots-drone-gets-arrested/726634/333 "2015-08-10T14:33:38Z")
A quad-copter recently landed on the Whitehouse lawn. \*Federal prosecutors said Wednesday they will not charge the recreational drone operator whose device crashed onto the White House lawn Jan. 26, but the District resident and intelligence community worker may face a fine from the Federal Aviation Administration. The decision, announced by the office of the U.S. attorney for the District, Ronald C. Machen Jr., came after the security breach of the executive mansion grounds focused national attention on potential threats posed by the growing use of small, unmanned aircraft. Secret Service agents presented the results of their investigation of the case, but in a statement, prosecutors said a forensic analysis determined that the drone’s operator was not in control of the craft when it crashed\*. > **[Man whose drone crashed at White House won’t be charged; fine possible](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/prosecutors-will-not-charge-white-house-drone-operator-faa-may-fine/2015/03/18/cd43697a-cd98-11e4-8c54-ffb5ba6f2f69_story.html)** > > A D.C. resident who says he lost control of the craft could face an FAA penalty of up to $1,100. I find it amusing that the drone operator won’t be charged BECAUSE HE WASN’T IN CONTROL OF HIS DRONE WHEN IT CRASHED. The drone operator chose to launch the drone operator but is no longer responsible if he loses control of it??? How convenient. Apparently, flying over the WH is illegal. Landing on the WH lawn is illegal. I would like to see the rules, regulations, and laws changed to provide me, my family, my home, and my property with the same protection against drone operators that the WH enjoys. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2015, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kentucky-man-shoots-drone-gets-arrested/726634/334 "2015-08-10T14:38:35Z")
Yes, because making it illegal to fly over _anyone’s_ house won’t kill off the aviation industry or anything. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2015, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kentucky-man-shoots-drone-gets-arrested/726634/335 "2015-08-10T14:55:09Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Yes, because making it illegal to fly over _anyone’s_ house won’t kill off the aviation industry or anything. Fair’s fair. I want the same protections as the WH. Airlines are required to stick to established flight paths. Airlines carry liability insurance to cover accidents. Drone fliers could be required to do the same. I know of three RC airplane fields in my area where RC operators are allowed to enjoy their hobby. Drones could be flown at any of those. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2015, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kentucky-man-shoots-drone-gets-arrested/726634/336 "2015-08-10T15:04:02Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Fair’s fair. I want the same protections as the WH. Well, you aren’t worth it. You don’t get to tell airliners that they can’t fly over your house. You don’t get to have an army protect your every movement. You don’t get to have 24/7 protection in case someone trespasses on your property. The President is special – and yes, I’ll agree that his treatment has long ago crossed into the privileges afforded to a king rather than an elected leader – but you and I don’t rate the same protections. Get used to it. ---
**Author:** ![Pork\_Rind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pork_rind/32/111_2.png) [@Pork\_Rind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pork_Rind)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2015, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kentucky-man-shoots-drone-gets-arrested/726634/337 "2015-08-10T18:53:54Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > lAirlines are required to stick to established flight paths. In practice, this happens especially near airports using published arrival and departure procedure. But especially after the arrival of GPS, aircraft can proceed direct from on location to another when cleared to do so at their request. Pilots flying under visual flight rules have even more freedom to fly wherever they please subject to restriction in congested airspace. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2015, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kentucky-man-shoots-drone-gets-arrested/726634/338 "2015-08-10T19:20:55Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Fair’s fair. I want the same protections as the WH. > > Airlines are required to stick to established flight paths. Airlines carry liability insurance to cover accidents. Drone fliers could be required to do the same. > > I know of three RC airplane fields in my area where RC operators are allowed to enjoy their hobby. Drones could be flown at any of those. You can enjoy the same protections as the POTUS by becoming POTUS. Or by living in a nuclear power plant. I have no problem with requiring drone fliers to carry liability insurance or stick to established flight paths, but how do you differentiate between a “drone” and “little Susie’s radio controlled plane”? This is the sort of regulation that your side of the aisle is generally yelling about on talk radio. ---
**Author:** ![TheSeaOtter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ed655f/32.png) [@TheSeaOtter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheSeaOtter)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2015, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kentucky-man-shoots-drone-gets-arrested/726634/339 "2015-08-10T20:44:56Z")
Mr. Boggs has released what he claims is unedited video footage from the drone, which shows it hovering briefly and, to my completely non-expert eye, pretty high up, before being shot down. > **[Video: Kentucky drone only hovered for about 22 seconds before being shot down](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/08/video-kentucky-drone-only-hovered-for-about-22-seconds-before-being-shot-down/)** > > Pilot: "We just wanted him to replace the drone, and now he’s selling T-shirts." ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2015, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kentucky-man-shoots-drone-gets-arrested/726634/340 "2015-08-10T23:07:33Z")
[Apparent precedence.](http://petapixel.com/2015/06/29/man-wins-lawsuit-against-neighbor-who-shot-down-drone-with-shotgun/) > [@](#): > > … drone pilot, Eric Joe, has just won a lawsuit against a disgruntled neighbor who blasted Joe’s hexacopter out of the sky with a shotgun. > > VICE reports that a judge has ordered that Brett McBay cough up $850 for Joe’s custom-built drone. McBay originally had to pay $2,500 bail after being charged with possession of a weapon for unlawful purpose and criminal mischief. … > > … The official decree of the case noted that the “court finds that Mr. McBay acted unreasonably in having his son shoot the drone down regardless of whether it was over his property or not” and that “Judgement will enter for Eric Joe and against Brett McBay for the sum of $700 plus costs of $150.” According to the judge, “it was more or less an open-and-shut case” since McBay acknowledged shooting down the drone via email. > > At this time, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has classified drones as ‘aircrafts’ meaning that shooting at one is technically a violation of federal law and can carry a sentence of up to 20 years in prison. While no one has been charged that severely at this time, the FAA has made it clear that shooting down a drone is illegal. A criminal case is still pending against McBay at this time. … No update on the outcome of the criminal case, but Mr. Boggs will likely win the civil judgement for damages. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kentucky-man-shoots-drone-gets-arrested/726634.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kentucky-man-shoots-drone-gets-arrested/726634.md?page=18)