Oh, for fuck’s sake. I chided the other side of the debate earlier in the thread but it makes very little sense to give every benefit of the doubt to the guy who just blew away a radio-controlled aircraft with a shotgun.
Hmmm pretzels…
(post shortened)
There’s a video of the creepy drone owner saying the video is missing and he doesn’t know where it is. He didn’t say the recording device was shot, he says it’s missing.
I don’t believe the home owner should have shot down the drone. That’s just as dangerous as having any airborne drone malfunction over residential areas. That’s probably why the FAA frowns on assholes flying drones over residential areas.
There’s no point in allowing someone to say that the lone home owner said he would murder someone.
Homer Simpson, is that you?
“There is going to be another shooting” is not the sort of thing I would say if I were merely preparing to defend myself.
Well, what if you were a real tough guy, and felt all action movie-y ? 
Its not implausible that it flew off when the shotgun blast hit it and now they can’t find it. It doesn’t set off any alarm bells when the drone owner says the footage is missing. At least for me
Eh, kinda. I was marvelling at the intricate rhetorical pretzels you were twisting yourself into. Then I got hungry.
Obviously, I’d say yippee-ki-yay, mother fucker.
Uh, yes, he did. We know this because that’s what the homeowner says that he said.
The law on this has been cited several times in this thread.
Great, if this was a GQ thread, but the issue is certainly debatable and will become more so as drones increase in popularity and power. The sidewalk issue is no more than a rehash of previous gun rights threads.
I don’t see it as a gun rights issue. It’s a self-defense issue. Can I threaten to stab someone for being agitated and stepping on my lawn? No, of course I can’t threaten that.
Some states justify self-defense simply by word of the defendant saying he felt threatened. Personally, I would feel that the threat must be credible after investigation.
There seems to be bad blood and bad decisions on both sides. Personally I would be pretty pissed if someone was hovering an RC aircraft over my home, especially if it had a camera on it. Perhaps he shouldn’t have used a shotgun (even with #10 birdshot would lose energy rapidly and be like a rain of tiny BBs when falling), maybe he needs bolas or a net.
As far as “If you cross that sidewalk onto my property, there’s going to be another shooting” that’s a bit harsh, but no one knows if he would have actually drawn his weapon. He prevented escalation of the situation so I consider that a good thing.
Getting my information from this Arstechnica article.
Right. Facts have no place in GD.
Oy.
So getting the bothersome facts out of the way:
The home owner performed an illegal act by shooting down the drone.
He was outside the law in threatening to shoot the owners of the drone if they stepped across his sidewalk.
Defensive use of deadly force (by Kentucky statute) is not permitted for merely stepping on property without permission. Under 503.080 it requires an attempt to “dispossess him of his dwelling” or “attempting to commit a burglary, robbery, or other felony involving the use of force” or “attempting to commit arson of a dwelling.” Under previously cited 503.055 it requires BOTH “a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another” and that the homeowner is not “engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity.”
But okay you want discussion about what should be and don’t care much about what the law or the facts actually are …
The questions then include:
What should be the vertical range that property rights extend to?
What are your rights is something unmanned infringes upon your property? Are you entitled to destroy said property? If a kid’s wagon rolls downhill onto Old Man Grump’s lawn is he legally or ethically entitled to shoot it up? Or to take a baseball bat to it?
If something is outside the range of your legal property rights but you don’t like it, you suspect that the van across the street is actually spying on you and that the crane actually contains a camera that is taking pictures of what is on your side of your privacy fence, do you have a right to blow up the van?
Imagine for the hypothetical that someone is using that van to spy on you … an investigator hired by an ex, someone trying to figure out if you really are disabled as claimed, whatever, maybe even someone hoping to catch a picture of your teen aged daughter in a bikini … do you have a legal or ethical right to blow up the van then? (You know it is unoccupied at the time.)
I’d guess property rights should be about 50 feet or so above the upper limits on buildings in the zoning district.
I do not think that someone’s toy coming into range of my legal property rights entitles me to destroy said property. Physical trespass by itself does not justify use of a deadly weapon. Not by law and not by ethical considerations. OTOH I think it is ethically justifiable to consider the toy as an extension of the intent of its owner and to hold the owner liable for the actions to the same degree as if it was his/her person entering my property.
No, I do not have the right to blow up an unoccupied van being used to spy on me or even one attempting to catch a picture of my daughter sunbathing. Even if it really really pisses me off. Let alone even if I only imagine that it might be being used to spy on me or mine. I can call the police on it though.
Three men, who are angry at me, who have been told that I am armed, and willing to us it, should they step over the property line, who persist in stepping over the property line?
Yeah…those are guys who want to do me harm. What - you figure that they knew I was armed but REALLY wanted to sell me those girl scout cookies?
The only reason they would do so if they KNEW (and we know I know)
Wait - are you saying that if someone disobeys you, you think it’s legal to shoot them?
Wait - can you show me where I said that?