There ya go, hombre. It’s impossible to tell why the drone is there, whether or not and what video it’s recording, and if so for whom? I’m not gonna Google it right now, but internet laws strongly suggest “Drone Porn” is already going to yield you some pretty interesting footage.
As for the OP story? Definitely a case of bad shooter. He is the bane of responsible gun owners who consider the intended target as well as potential unintended targets further downrange. Even if the drone were clearly peeping at nekkid daughters through a window I don’t know that blazing away with a shotgun in suburbia is the appropriate response. Voyeurism is annoying and only theoretically harmful. The effluence of a firearm is dangerous by design.
My general answer to both questions is, “Yes.” This answer is completely unrelated to his shooting down the drone.
I’m about this guy’s age, and if I had four much younger, much more physically able, and pissed off men about to approach me on my property, I’d definitely warn them off.
We don’t know, and nor do you. I think it’s significant that all pending charges are related to the surface-to-air shotgunning rather than to any threats against the drone operators.
He only had to convince the four angry, verbally-aggressive men that he was serious. That threat was enough to convince four angry, verbally-aggressive men not to approach him, assault him, or trespass on his property. The verbal threat was sufficient. He did not have to draw his weapon. He did not have to shoot anyone.
If the four angry, verbally-aggressive men had acted differently, such as charging the home owner, the situation would be, of course, different.
No one was shot, astoundingly enough. I was referring to the threat levelled towards the four guys. An actual threat, not a “they did something perfectly reasonable that scared me so I felt threatened” threat.
lol. nice one! I just moved from Chicago to Texas, so the law may have to change from place to place. Perhaps the height a glock can shoot for Chicago and a .950 JDJ for Texas.
Well…yeah. It worked. No one was hurt, even those these guys were (perhaps justifiably) pissed off over the loss of their expensive drone. So…yeah, I think his actions were justified based on what little we know at this point, and I think his fear was certainly reasonable. I’d rather warn off 4 pissed off guys and have them go away than hope they are reasonable and only yell and scream about their expensive lost drone, especially if my wife and kids are there as well. YMMV of course, and I can certainly see how some might just call the police and hope for the best…but then, I’d guess that you and others wouldn’t be shooting down some guys drones in any case, so it probably wouldn’t have come up in the first place.
FWIW, I wouldn’t have shot down the drone either…certainly I wouldn’t discharge a shot gun in a residential neighborhood. I’d have filmed it and called the police, and perhaps a good lawyer and seen what could be done in the civil courts.
They don’t usually have cameras on them, or even if they do they aren’t designed to be camera platforms. I think that’s the difference. I seriously doubt folks were too happy though to have even old style radio controlled helicopters or airplanes buzzing their houses in the past, however.
I think the guy is extremely lucky. It sounds like something that could have been charged as a robbery, and instead he’s only going down for “mischief.”
So if I ever hit another car in a car accident, and the other driver approaches me, I’m justified in threatening to shoot him if he comes closer? Is that what most of you are saying?
Well, no…I think what people are saying is that leaving aside the anti-aircraft thingy with the shot gun, if 4 guys approach you aggressively that you are justified in being scared and justified in warning them off. Why go into convoluted analogies instead of simply addressing what folks are saying? If you don’t agree then, by all means defend your position.
My Yahoo feed had a headline saying the homeowner had been arrested, but the accompanying story just re-ran the previous day’s article.
He used a shotgun. I’m not a hunter, but I’ve been told that buckshot (unlike bullets) loses a lot of speed and momentum by the time it rains back to the ground.
I think the owners of the drone need a much better explanation of what they were doing with that camera. They also need to be identified. My hunch is, they’re not new at this. Their claim that they were innocently filming a different house sounds fishy.
Buckshot is lighter and smaller, so isn’t going to have that whole F=MA punch as a bullet will when falling back to earth. Still, I don’t think this dude was justified firing a shot gun in a residential neighborhood, regardless, and certainly not over a drone flying by his house. He should have called the police after recording the drone and where it was.
Why is the other driver approaching you? Are you too drunk to get out of your burning car? Are they threatening to kill you because you killed their child or wife? Does the other driver intend to swap insurance company and driver’s license info with you? Each individual incident should be assessed separately. There is no One-Size-Fits-All approach.
