That somewhere was towards him on his property and according to him they were aggressive in their manner.
So what? He had stolen something from them. It’s not self-defense if you’re a criminal, so he should be charged with threatening to shoot them (or, if it happened right after the theft, armed robbery).
yes it is.
IANAL but it seems to me that self-defense requires a reasonable person believing that they would be under threat of imminent harm, not merely trespass onto property.
Threat of a weapon against others during the commission of a crime (if such applied here) to prevent the victim of the crime from responding to your criminal activity seems unlikely to count as self-defense, even if one felt that harm was otherwise possible.
I think “drone” has become an all-inclusive term for remotely piloted aircraft, from great big USAF weapons-bearing craft to little toy RC hobby and toy craft.
If someone saw one of your hobby planes flying around, they would not be wrong in saying, “I saw a drone.”
No it isn’t. Now you.
(“Yes your honour, I shot the liquor store clerk, but it was self-defence ! He was trying to shoot me for robbing the store !”)
I bet this concept of “It’s okay to threaten murder if upset people are approaching” would be significantly different if, say, armed Cliven Bundy supporters approached Federal agents, or if pro-life activists approached a Planned Parenthood employee.
Be that as it may, as I understand it there is a difference between a drone and an RC airplane. An RC airplane can only be operated under 500 feet, within line of sight, for recreational purposes. A drone is an unmanned aircraft that doesn’t meet that definition. I suppose you could take your model P-51 airplane, and if you put a camera on it to take pictures for commercial purposes, it goes from being an RC airplane to being a drone.
Exactly what will start? what are you so afraid of?
Drones are unlikely to be used by paparazzi for the following reasons:
•cheap drones will never be able to take good enough photos for publication, even if the technology comes down in price, a large part of getting a good photo is optics, and good glass still costs pretty much the same as it did 20-30 years ago.
•most paparazzi are using digital camera / lens combinations costing $10,000 or more to get photos good enough for sale. Putting that package on a drone big enough to carry it (you can’t make lenses small and get a good photo, laws of physics) is going to cost even more. The risk to too great of them losing the drone due to the celebrities staff taking hostile action etc, it just doesn’t make economic sense.
The only people with the money to put $20,000-$30,000 optics packages on drones that can spy into bedrooms, is the government / intelligence / police, and they won’t be covered by whatever anti-drone laws get knee-jerked into action by paranoid homeowners.
No it will not come down in price, good lenses are and always will be expensive.
reread what I responded to. He was on his own property. They came to him not the other way around.
This is the digital age. Resolution is a function of pixels not lenses. The concept behind a drone is that you replace the expense of a good telescopic lens with the ability to get close to the subject matter. Drones have already been used for the express purpose of getting shots of celebrities. A $500 drone is cheaper than 1 hr rental of a decent helicopter.
It’s not a function of “will drones be used for this purpose”. It’s already happening and it’s cheap. I have a 3 mp phone that will stitch 5 frames together flawlessly so it’s capable of making magazine quality pictures. A great number of the gossip newspapers require far less resolution.
And he threatened to shoot them if they walked across some concrete. ** Doorhinge **said the man threatened to defend himself. That is not what happened. He did not say he would defend himself if attacked, he said he would shoot them if they crossed some line on the ground.
Over a toy.
Just google “RED Epic drone” and you’ll see the idea that fancy camera have no place on drones has been busted.
Finally I don’t have to go to the lake to launch my leftover bottle rockets. Just replace the wooden stick with a thin steel rod - coat hanger(?) build a launch tube and wait. Or see how high and straight my crossbow can go. No firearms needed.
A group of men advanced on him on his own property. If they’re asked to stop in a hostile situation and they don’t then it’s implied they intended to harm him.
The legal battles that are to come should be interesting. No matter what the method, certainly anti-drone/radio-controlled-aircraft/whatever-you-call-them technology will advance, and quickly, the first time somebody uses a drone to attack the white house, or anything else really.
Lasers would be my choice. High powered lasers.
My second thought was this guy has a lot in common with Barbara Streisand, oddly enough.
What constitutes the difference between men “advancing” on him and men “sidling up” to him? Had they sauntered towards him, would that be worth a death threat?
Private property line.
Huh. Never knew the postman “advanced” on me six days a week.
Seriously. This is the extent of your knowledge of the law?
The postman is granted by charter to deliver the mail. YOU however are not entitled to bring 2 of your friends to “discuss” your unhappiness with someone on their property. It’s easily construed as a threat when told to cease entry.