Peepin' Tom Drone. - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

dkveuro · #1 02-18-2012, 09:12 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/technology/drones-with-an-eye-on-the-public-cleared-to-fly.html

So, do we get to shoot the damn things down if they over fly your property. ...and what would the fine/offence be if you did ?

....or send up your own attack drone to shoot it down...http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/08/blackhat-drone/

Well...here's the first of many :http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1786094/pg1

.

elchivito · #2 02-18-2012, 09:16 PM

Out here, nobody'd know. I'd pop one in a heartbeat.

sixto · #3 02-18-2012, 10:28 PM

If one happened to fly into your 9mm 'drone' in flight over your property...

On the other hand can you shoo a kite away from your property? [edit] I mean from over your property?

Sixto
87 300D

aklim · #4 02-18-2012, 10:49 PM

Question. I know that a country cannot violate another country's airspace. Do we, as citizens have that same right? What is the international rules as far as vertical airspace goes? Does China or Parkistan have the right to shoot down a space probe that they say is above their country and how far? IDK.

More to the point, Does Citizen Joe have the right to shot down a balloon that goes over their house? Before I start shooting down these drones and besides in the city limits, I would first determine what rights I have.

dkveuro · #5 02-18-2012, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Question.............................. Do we, as citizens have that same right? What is the international rules as far as vertical airspace goes?................................................. Before I start shooting down these drones and besides in the city limits, I would first determine what rights I have.

Heck yeah aklim...lets get a test case goin'.

Let's test this observation........

In the case of United States v. Causby,[3] the U.S. Supreme Court declared the navigable airspace to be "a public highway" and within the public domain".[citation needed]

"At the same time, the law, and the Supreme Court, recognized that a landowner had property rights in the lower reaches of the airspace above their property. The law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner owns only so much of the airspace above their property as they may reasonably use in connection with their enjoyment of the underlying land. In other words, a person's real property ownership includes a reasonable amount of the airspace above the property. A landowner can't arbitrarily try to prevent aircraft from overflying their land by erecting "spite poles," for example. But, a landowner may make any legitimate use of their property that they want, even if it interferes with aircraft overflying the land".[

.

aklim · #6 02-18-2012, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkveuro

Heck yeah aklim...lets get a test case goin'.

Let's test this observation........

In the case of United States v. Causby,[3] the U.S. Supreme Court declared the navigable airspace to be "a public highway" and within the public domain".[citation needed]

"At the same time, the law, and the Supreme Court, recognized that a landowner had property rights in the lower reaches of the airspace above their property. The law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner owns only so much of the airspace above their property as they may reasonably use in connection with their enjoyment of the underlying land. In other words, a person's real property ownership includes a reasonable amount of the airspace above the property. A landowner can't arbitrarily try to prevent aircraft from overflying their land by erecting "spite poles," for example. But, a landowner may make any legitimate use of their property that they want, even if it interferes with aircraft overflying the land".[

.

Problem is that the animal's right's groups is looking to file charges so we already have a test case. Let someone else do the test case. Why re-invent the wheel? IF they are not successful, fine. If not, oh well. No need for me to get sued.

That quote you have is not really clear on how far up you can go. I suppose you can erect a tall enough buiding if you want to prevent their drones from circling overhead but it stops short of saying "I can fly my drone over your property only from 500 feet and above.". THAT is what worries me. The word "reasonably" is very vague when we are talking of a drone that hovers say 300 feet above. It is going to be very difficult to justify why you object to my drone if you cannot say that it is blocking your sun, wind, rain, etc, etc. If it is all the same to you, while shooting it down would give me pleasure, I'd rather not have you have the last laugh by making me pay for the drone and other damages.

dkveuro · #7 02-18-2012, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Problem is that the animal's right's groups is looking to file charges so we already have a test case. Let someone else do the test case. Why re-invent the wheel? IF they are not successful, fine. If not, oh well. No need for me to get sued.

That quote you have is not really clear on how far up you can go. I suppose you can erect a tall enough buiding if you want to prevent their drones from circling overhead but it stops short of saying "I can fly my drone over your property only from 500 feet and above.". THAT is what worries me. The word "reasonably" is very vague when we are talking of a drone that hovers say 300 feet above. .......................................

The new law says you can fly a drone UP TO 400ft.

GA rules state you must maintain 500 ft above ground and from buildings or people. So the 400ft gives a drone and a GAA, 100 vertical feet clearance.

Perhaps some pilot can chime in here.

.

.

aklim · #8 02-18-2012, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkveuro

The new law says you can fly a drone UP TO 400ft.

GA rules state you must maintain 500 ft above ground and from buildings or people. So the 400ft gives a drone and a GAA 100 vertical feet clearence.

Perhaps some pilot can chime in here.

Not sure about WI but we don't even have castle doctrine laws here. It isn't like we can simply shoot people who trespass on marked property. If Obama or whomever is the next Prez will sign a pardon, I'd not only buy a 50 cal sniper rifle and shoot it down but I'll shove the parts so far up your azz, you'd be crapping drone parts for the next week.

Botnst · #9 02-19-2012, 12:56 AM

It'd okay because the Democrats run everything. If the Republicans ran things it would be bad.

cmac2012 · #10 02-19-2012, 03:51 AM

Speaking of droning . . .

compress ignite · #11 02-19-2012, 04:04 AM

500 or even 400 ft.
The Government can See More of you and your chattels with the Satellites in
orbit that we're not supposed to know about.
('Suckers can read your driver's license, if you hold it in your hand)

If I were gonna be concerned...
The thought of Private Individuals whether Licensed as P.I.s or Not being
allowed to use this new "Eye in the Sky" technology kinda creeps me out.

[How Far UP will a 12 Gauge push a Deer Slug?]

aklim · #12 02-19-2012, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by compress ignite

[How Far UP will a 12 Gauge push a Deer Slug?]

How far are you willing to go if you get caught and sued and prosecuted? As long as you are willing to pay the penalty, go for it. You can do anything including murder as long as you are willing to pay the price. While I value my privacy, I'd rather not simply shoot. Still, I doubt it a 12 gauge slug will go 500 feet vertically and hit with any accuracy. I wouldn't trust a slug more than 100 yards horizontally so if you want to make it an anti-aircraft weapon, you best be shooting at something under that range.

The Clk Man · #13 02-19-2012, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

It'd okay because the Democrats run everything. If the Republicans ran things it would be bad.

That is so correct.

catmandoo62 · #14 02-19-2012, 07:42 PM

plus the drone is gonna be flying at say 40-100 mph.good luck hittin that.

aklim · #15 02-19-2012, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catmandoo62

plus the drone is gonna be flying at say 40-100 mph.good luck hittin that.

Well, I have seen a pheasant fly perpendicular to a line of shooters. About 5 or 6 and not one of them scored a hit. Perhaps someone would buy a Patriot missile from the army surplus store and score a hit.