The ends justify the means? I don’t know the laws in that state but here it would be considered a terroristic threat. Just because someone is angry doesn’t mean they should be threatened with death.
What if he looks angry? Mildly peeved? Slightly annoyed? At what point does a persons demeanor justify a death threat?
I would gladly answer the question, I’m just not sure what it means. I smash into someone else’s car angering them. This guy shot down a drone angering others. In each case, one person does something to anger someone else, and same person gets to threaten to kill the other on the basis that the other is angry?
This is what I’m asking. If angry people approach me, am I justified in your mind shouting, “One step closer and I wil kill you!” principally on the basis that they are angry?
I just veered into their car - let’s say it was intentionally. They are pissed. I can threaten to kill them if they step any closer?
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
This is what I’m asking. If angry people approach me, am I justified in your mind shouting, “One step closer and I wil kill you!” principally on the basis that they are angry?
[/QUOTE]
On the basis that they were a threat. I suppose you COULD not warn them then kill them once they start beating on you…or, let them beat you up I guess with your family there to watch and, hopefully not get involved in the festivities. I’m really curious…do you not think that if multiple angry guys are threatening you on your property you should warn them off??
[QUOTE=Loach]
The ends justify the means? I don’t know the laws in that state but here it would be considered a terroristic threat. Just because someone is angry doesn’t mean they should be threatened with death.
[/QUOTE]
I’d go more with ‘context is the key’ than ‘ends justify the means’, but whatever you like. I don’t know where ‘here’ is, but warning people that you could or would use deadly force if they attack you on your own property is kind of a gray area in the US…it certainly wouldn’t be a ‘terroristic threat’ though.
And I think that them being angry and threatening themselves justifies a warning BEFORE things get out of hand. Obviously, there are several posters in this thread who don’t see it that way, so maybe it’s just one of my quirks that it’s better to make an angry foursome of dudes back down rather than get the shit kicked out of this guy at the possible threat to his wife and daughter or, at a minimum that they would have to watch such a thing. Also, think of how much those guys fists and feet as well as elbows and knees might have been hurt by repeatedly hitting him…seems to me that all of that was saved by simply making it clear that if they continued that worst things than them beating him up might be in store. Obviously, MMV on this, especially in your neck of the woods where it’s probably better to let those guys vent, though, conversely you probably wouldn’t have shot down the expensive drone either so it’s a wash.
If people are approaching who are simply angry, aren’t menacing me in some way (bearing baseball bats or reaching into their waistbands), I think it is totally appropriate to yell something like, “Stop right there!” “Don’t come any closer!” Or maybe even “I am armed!” if they continue to advance.
Going right to “I am going to shoot you if you come any nearer!” in my mind is a statement worthy of criminals and psychotics, again assuming that the approaching people are angry for a clear reason (that I am responsible for, BTW) and show no other signs of being violent.
Well, that’s reasonable. But I think it’s something that reasonable people can at least understand in the heat of the moment. Fear does strange things to people, especially when ones family is there as well. No, I wouldn’t jump right to ‘I am going to shoot you if you come any nearer!’, but then as I said I wouldn’t have shot the drone (leaving aside the fact that I also don’t have a gun, which would have made both things sort of difficult from my own perspective). I do think that if people are angry and approaching your property that it’s not a totally unfounded assumption that they may become violent in the near future, especially if one is responsible for destroying a drone worth over a thousand dollars. To my mind such a fear is at least in the reasonable realm of possibility, so I can see warning someone off. But then, I think that if someone shot down my drone with a shot gun I wouldn’t have rushed over to confront some dude who obviously has control issues AND a shot gun, even backed by 4 of my buddies. Sounds to me as if all parties involved would have been better served getting the police involved.
I don’t see anybody asking, let alone answering, the big elephant in the room question.
If he hadn’t shot down that drone, how would he (or the police) ever have identified the owner/operator? Everyone up-thread who says he should have just called the police, answer this: What do you think the police shoulda/coulda/woulda done? They’d just blow off the complaint, because AFAIK there’s no way to track down the owner/operator. It’s just like complaining about those junk telemarketing calls, or all that on-line internet harassment from Gamergate or Cecil-the-Lion-gate that nobody can control because you can’t catch the perps.
Vigilante justice, like this guy with the shot-gun, happens in large part because people see the official law-enforcement types as unwilling, or uninterested, or unable to do anything.
Yep. I wonder what the outcome would be if the homeowner used an attack drone to destroy the video drone. You know this is coming.
Attack drone = cheap drone that destroys other drones. Defend yourself. Buy a dozen.
I really do wonder what the legal battle would be over this.
You can issue a death threat any time you think you can get away with it. You may get away with it. People might allow you to go to the head of the queue. Or you could be arrested for threatening people. Or someone may decide to see if you’ll follow thru on your threat.
Each incident would have to be decided on a individual basis.
The use of lethal force, OTOH, requires a threat of imminent danger of great bodily harm or death.
It is now. :eek:
Which item do you think would be most effective for Death-From-Above aerial combat:
- a 4 to 6 foot titanium wire
- several feet of thin, stainless steel chain
- a “dream catcher” made of Spectra Super Braid fishing line
What if nothing being done was illegal? In that case the police should/coulda/wouda done nothing at all, and it would have been 100% proper. Before you commit felony aggravated robbery to solve a problem (he took valuable property and threatened the owners with deadly force), you should at least be pretty damn sure it is a problem that you’re owed a solution to.
Battlebots: Airborne Division
When dickheads fly their drones over emergency situations thus preventing air assets from accessing those they were designed to protect, then yes, there should be a bounty on those drones. Shooting one flying over the suburbs is just insane. What goes up, has to come down, fortunately this one didn’t land on a 3 year old playing in his back yard.
What do you mean “when” ?
No need for anything fancy. Just some long trailers of fishing line will work fine.
That thread is why I found and joined the forums.
Now imagine some anthrax, radioactive dust, or just a good old fashioned bomb.
Welcome to the future. It’s going to really suck.
Let’s all remember that a lot of drones are actually flying kill machines, and they kill people all the time.
Yeah, OK lets not think about it.
FYI, if he shot it with bird shot, the pellets coming back down are not really dangerous. I’ve had bird shot rain down on me from duck hunters and it doesn’t even hurt. I suppose if you just happened to look up into one it might be bad, but probably no worse than an acorn falling from a tree.
Googling “Drone Porn” leads to a short film made with paid actors as a comment on the paranoia about surveillance. Clicked through several pages, no illicit “creep videos” come up at all.