Shooting the hovering drone falls under a local discharging a firearm in a residential area-type of law. The local wording of such a law would be applicable.
KRS § 503.080 would specifically apply to the 4 angry men who were advancing on the lone homeowner. Do not trespass on his property. Do not threaten the lone homeowner with bodily harm. Do not harm the lone homeowner. The odds were 4 against 1.
Do we have any other source other than the shooter that they were menacing and threatening him? It seems that its a perfectly normal response to be upset after your thousand dollar toy is shot down from the sky where you, presumably, thought it was doing no harm.
I think we just need a blanket law that says to not shoot things down from the sky unless its threatening you with bodily harm. Perverts with drones should be treated like somebody peeping over your fence: You can’t shoot them for looking no matter how pissed you are
Pervs/convicted child molesters should not be allowed to own/use drones. I believe laws should be changed to add camera-capable drone ownership to a list of restrictions child molesters must abide by.
4 angry men approached the lone homeowner. A man with a firearm diffused the situation without pointing his firearm at anyone. It was sufficient for the lone home owner to make it clear that he would defend himself from any attack by the 4 angry men.
Which specific provision of that law do you believe applies in this situation?
For example: in (1)(a), there’s nothing to suggest that the four men were, or about to, “criminally tresspass,” much less under the use of force,and note that (1) only applies to the use of physical, not deadly, force. The whole of (2) doesn’t apply because there’s no evidence that the four men were trying to rob the homeowner or dispossess him of his house.
(post shortened)
It would also be nice if the drone owner had not lost the video that had been shot by his drone camera. How inconvenient. It was reported that the drone, it’s sim(?) card, and camera had been turned over to the drone owner. Now the drone owner can’t prove that he wasn’t videoing children and bedroom windows.
He didn’t say he would defend himself from attack. He said he would shoot them if they crossed the sidewalk. Stepping on to his property is not an attack that a reasonable person would believe would be risking the homeowner’s life – in fact, at most, it is a violation of Kentucky law that would be punished by a ticket, like loitering. It isn’t even a misdemeanor.
The latter. It would be 1a and 2b. That’s the argument I’d advance were I advising. The finder of fact would need to determine if the fact pattern met the statute. I could see that defense prevailing.
The law also says, “or other felony involving the use of force”.
Neither side resorted had to physical force. Why? Because everyone used common sense, or because a firearm was present? Either way, the potential of a violent confrontation was diffused.
The lone home owner made it clear that he would defend himself, if necessary, against the 4 angry men. Whatever intentions the 4 angry men may have had when they began to approach the lone home owner ended when the lone home owner made it clear that he would defend himself, regardless of the 4-to-1 odds.
You keep saying, “defend himself.” He didn’t make it clear he would defend himself, he made it clear that he would murder anyone who steps foot on his property irregardless of intention.
Why would the 4 angry men need to trespass on the lone home owners property?
Perhaps to ask why he shot down their drone?
Pervs? Define pervs.
“Irregardless”? Since this is a discussion of semantics, the lone home owner did not say he would murder anyone. He said there would be another shooting. You assume that the lone home owner said he would murder one, or all, of the 4 angry men. Is it possible that the lone home owner meant he would fire a warning shot?
I was going with the flow. I wasn’t the first one to use the term “pervs”. I assume it means peeping toms who would use a drone camera to peep in windows and hover over sunbathers.
AFAIK, that discussion had already occurred while the 4 angry men and lone home owner had been shouting at each other. There was no reason for the 4 angry men to trespass on the lone home owners property to gather information.
Cite for they were already shouting at each other? As I understood it, when they arrived to confront the homeowner, they were greeted with a death thread should they cross onto his property.
Doesn’t matter anyway, as the four “angry” men had shown no hostile intention as far as I’m aware. They weren’t yelling, “We’re going to beat the shit out of you!” or “You’re dead, motherfucker!” He had no cause to threaten them with death. He could have said, “I’m armed. If you try anything hostile, I’ll shoot you” and would have been fine. He didn’t. Instead, he told them if they stepped onto his property (no qualifier), he would shoot them.
In Kentucky, even first degree criminal tresspass is not a felony, and in any case, stepping onto someone’s property isn’t a “use of force.”
Why? Because one of the parties threatened the others with murder, causing them to leave. You can’t just go around threatening to shoot people and then claim success that you have defused the situation. Threatening to shoot someone for no legal cause isn’t defusing a crisis, as one police officer in this thread has already stated, it is a crime.
He didn’t say he’d defend himself against a threat. He said he’d shoot if someone stepped off the sidewalk. That’s psychotic-level behavior, IMHO.
If you have a disagreement with a neighbor, do you shout out your disagreement from across the street? Actually, that’s a serious question. I’ve been to neighborhoods where that is the norm.
The idea that the homeowner wasn’t actually threatening to shoot one of the four men is about the most absurd thing I’ve read on this board since you said that a maniac in a Walmart was just “trying out” his shotgun by loading it and racking it. No reasonable person can possibly interpret “if you cross the sidewalk there is going to be another shooting” as anything but a threat to shoot a person. That statement doesn’t mean that if the men cross the sidewalk, the homeowner is going to take a three week safari vacation where he’s going to hunt Cecil the lion, for example.
According to the homeowner, when the men approached, one of them said, “Are you the son of a bitch who shot my drone?” The homeowner then responded, “If you cross that sidewalk onto my property, there’s going to be another shooting.” There was no discussion that preceded the threat.
You can’t just make up fantasy scenarios. Or can you? How do we know that the homeowner isn’t an ISIL sleeper operative who thought that the drone was US military surveillance of him building a dirty bomb? Hey, I’m just asking questions.
I don’t get why the sidewalk thing is getting any attention other than it supplies another lame excuse for pro-gun and anti-gun people to retread all their old arguments. Give it up already, it’s boring. The main issue here is the drone - can you fly one freely vs. can a drone over your property be considered a trespass?
I’m not sure how a drone works but is it possible the card was damaged by the shotgun? If the onboard memory is filled with holes, you’re probably not going to get much out of it
Even if the drone owners were hiding something, can you think of a scenario in which the homeowner would be justified firing into the air like that? Let’s say 4 creepy weirdos were taking bikini shots of the guy’s daughters. I STILL don’t think he has the right to shoot the thing down
(post shortened)
In your fantasy scenario, the lone home owner said he’d shoot someone if they stepped off the sidewalk. The lone home owner did not say that.
Since you admit that you realize people standing some distance apart do shout to each other, how else would they communicate effectively? Phone call? Hand gestures? Smoke signals?
You can make up any fantasy you wish about the 4 angry men being ISIS operatives, or dirty bombs, but those are YOUR fantasies, not mine.