Privately owned drone shot down in KY?

[Glider-Rider]

I dont want to stir up any trouble here, but I am following a thread on another site. It appears that a drone was shot down in KY and alledgedly the drone owner confronted the shooter and was told that if he stepped on shooters property there would be "another shooting". It seems the alledged shooter is now facing two felony charges.

I had a drone come in over my head the other day, right in the middle of my (3 acre) yard, at least 1000' from where it took off. I live in the country, closest house is 800' away. I felt my space was violated, although I dont think the law would agree with me. I admit, I was inclined to attempt a shoot down.

I also read that CA firefighters and police choppers increasingly cant do their work due to drone traffic.

I am curious what others think about all this and what if anything should be done.

If this goes south please delete the thread. Thank you

[Mayhemxpc]

IF it goes to court it will be an interesting case. My guess is that the charge will be reduced to discharging a firearm in city limits. The local TV station is running a poll and right now, 90 pct of respondents say the homeowner did the right thing. (The prosecutor will probably NOT want a jury trial.) Complicating the matter is that the police did not retain the quadcopter as evidence, but returned it to its owners. Therefore, anything information about the path or activity of the UAV presented by the UAV operator is suspect. The other witnesses in the area seem to support the homeowners contention of trespass (operations well below curtilage) and invasion of privacy. The homeowner is exploring charges to press against the UAV operator.I do have one question. IF the contention of the UAV operator is correct that he was not looking at Mr. Meredith's girls or over his property, then how did the operator know that Mr. Meredith was the one who shot the quadcopter down? Right now the operators are claiming the UAV was not over his property and 272' AGL when it was hit. Anyone ever do any skeet shooting? On shot -- one kill at a hundred yards UP and who knows how many laterally? 65 yards is typical maximum effective range (not saying longer shots aren't possible, but don't bet on it.)

[Glider-Rider]

I have read that the alledged shooter admitted that he shot it down, doesnt seem to be any dispute on that.

Shooter has overwhelming support in all the posts I saw.

Jury nullification seems quite possible IMO. Edit: Prosecutor would be wise to drop it or else offer a plea bargain. If accused, I think I would roll the dice with a jury. I say that now, but I dont know what the charges are. This will be a very interesting case. I always felt it was a bad idea to allow just anyone to basically become an untrained pilot. Too many real pilots (and passengers etc) at risk IMO. End edit.

I hope that if people do shoot them down they wont use rifles, they carry too far, dont know who or what one might hit.

[WLIU]

This is where state privacy laws come into play. Whip out your video camera and file a complaint with the local police, government, and if the errant drone appears to be above 400', with the FAA. Let them sort it out with the owner.

The owner of an RC ship or a consumer quad-copter is clearly OK to fly above their own property below 400'. Or above property that is used, under some sort of ownership or lease, by a club that the drone owner participates in. Everywhere else land owners and governments get involved. Historically, model airplane builders and flyers have lived within boundaries of geography and behavior that has been accepted by the surrounding communities and governmental bodies. Life has been good.

We now have folks flying these craft that have no understanding of how their extended behavior runs into other folks rights and boundaries. Some of this is ignorance and some of it is an extension of how these folks think day to day anyway. This is likely to get uglier before it gets better. Every governmental jurisdiction is going to handle this differently until some sort of consensus emerges.

So your own video of the problem flight is the best evidence against a drone owner who gets offside. Flying around your house looking in windows is certainly actionable. Flying low over sun bathers is also something you can take to the authorities. Destroying someone else's drone just muddies the waters. Not worth doing. But if the battery runs low and it lands in your yard you can hold it as evidence until the police arrive....

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[martymayes]

lol, I think it's great! And they should allow drones to be armed so they can defend themselves!!

[Byron J. Covey]

I dont want to stir up any trouble here, but I am following a thread on another site. It appears that a drone was shot down in KY and alledgedly the drone owner confronted the shooter and was told that if he stepped on shooters property there would be "another shooting". It seems the alledged shooter is now facing two felony charges.

I had a drone come in over my head the other day, right in the middle of my (3 acre) yard, at least 1000' from where it took off. I live in the country, closest house is 800' away. I felt my space was violated, although I dont think the law would agree with me. I admit, I was inclined to attempt a shoot down.

I also read that CA firefighters and police choppers increasingly cant do their work due to drone traffic.

I am curious what others think about all this and what if anything should be done.

If this goes south please delete the thread. Thank you

I think that I have the right to shoot them down. Were I on a jury, jury nullification definitely would come into play.


BJC

[Mayhemxpc]

According to reports from the Louisville area, the copter operators "lost" the memory card so the video cannot be reviewed. Draw your own conclusions.

Voyeur filming of minor daughters. Filming the copter in the act will not prevent the video of your daughters from being posted on the internet. This is not a case of "innocent passage" or reasonable accommodation. Having lived in that area for some time, I think that a good Kentucky lawyer (the home of the Kentucky long rifle) could make a good argument for "reasonable and necessary." Prosecutors do not like to "roll the dice" with a jury.

[Mike M]

...file a complaint with the local police, government, and if the errant drone appears to be above 400', with the FAA. Let them sort it out with the owner. The owner of an RC ship or a consumer quad-copter is clearly OK to fly above their own property below 400'....

Isn't that 400' thing non-regulatory? An FAA AC? Class G goes to 1200'AGL most places, right? That's regulatory. Clarification, I'm the guy who thinks errant operators should suffer the same fate as their victims after a midair with a manned aircraft. And that ALL these things should be required to have ADSB if they're going to fly other than at AMA hobby sites. Those AMA folks have been good neighbors in the airspace for decades. They DON'T need to be smeared by the rogues and scofflaws.

[Frank Giger]

And that ALL these things should be required to have ADSB if they're going to fly other than at AMA hobby sites.

No, no, no, no.....a thousand times no!

If ADSB is required on little quad copters it will be required on all aircraft.

[FlyingRon]

Note, he's not been charged with shooting down the drone. He's being charged with the fact that shooting skyward in the area was reckless (no matter why he was doing so). First rule of hunting is to assure yourself that what's beyond your target (i.e., where the shot that didn't get embedded in the target is going to go).

[Mayhemxpc]

Ron, based on shooting statistics, I wish that the police would exercise similar caution when they shoot. (Please note, that is NOT political or directed at any particular events. It IS however, a specific consideration discussed in the mandatory training in Kentucky to qualify for a concealed carry permit.)

Anyway, I believe that with good legal counsel he can make a good argument that it was not negligent, careless, or reckless based on that he hit what he aimed at and no other damage or injuries are being claimed. I already said that there could be a good argument for "reasonable and necessary," which is a valid defense against prohibitions on discharging a firearm in city limits.

Dropping charges against Meredith would do more to keep UAV operators under control than any revision to the Federal Aviation Regulations.

[TedK]

Dropping charges against Meredith would do more to keep UAV operators under control than any revision to the Federal Aviation Regulations.

Bingo!

[hogflyer]

Being both a pvt pilot and having flown model aircraft for over 40 years, I feel that anybody who thinks that it's OK to shoot down a quadcopter is just plain wrong. The cameras that are carried by these quads are very small, have a very wide angle (120 to 160 deg is pretty much standard depending on the type of camera), and don't have very good resolution, especially at 400' or higher. It's not like the equipment on a gov't drone, or even a DSLR hung out the window of a C-172. Further it is not OK to shoot any aircraft down that isn't directly threatening you with bodily harm. What happens if somebody does this in a typical city subdivision and misses? What goes up must come down - either a bullet or lots of small lead pellets. An Octocopter like I'm working on that will weigh over 16 lbs when flying will do a lot of damage if it's shot down and falls uncontrollably from 400'. LiPo batteries used on quads are very flammable and in dry conditions like in California can easily start a fire (and water only makes them burn hotter and faster).

Discharging a firearm in a reckless manner like this is just pure stupid, dangerous and very negligent. The shooter has confessed to what appears to be two felonies involving a firearm and needs to be prosecuted, even if it requires a change of venue. I don't buy the "reasonable and necessary" defense as Meridith could have called the police and reported it instead of pulling out his gun and shooting the quad down - it's not like the quad was armed and ready to bomb his swimming pool. Dropping charges could also lead to more quads being show down and an an armed confrontation as somebody tries to retrieve their quad, a gun is pulled on them with a threat to shoot them, and they in turn pull a gun in self defense with the end result in somebody being shot and seriously injured or worse. Many people have a CCW and carry all the time. As far as the quad operator, without any evidence of intentional peeping, there's not much they can do as it's just hearsay. It's easy for him to claim the card was blown out of the camera by the shooter when he shot the quad out of the sky and couldn't be found - basically the shooter destroyed the evidence for the quad operator. There has also been no discussion how the FAA will handle this (since the incident has been reported to them) and it will set precedence as to whether radio control aircraft are classified (as the FAA claims) as "Aircraft" or not, and how they'll handle an aircraft being shot down. In the future under part 107 when a quad carries an N-number it'll also be a whole different can of worms since then a registered air vehicle will have been shot down.

To clarify another point, it is perfectly legal to fly a model aircraft over 400'. Per FAA AC 91-57, section 3C: "Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface. When flying aircraft within 3 miles of an airport, notify the airport operator, or when an air traffic facility is located at the airport, notify the control tower, or flight service station." The AC is only a guideline the FAA recommends be followed, not requires it. I was flying aerotow gliders (sizes range from 3 meter to over 6 meter span, one tow plane weighs in at 42 lbs. w/o fuel) yesterday and didn't release on each flight until at least 1000' AGL. Some flights where over 2600' AGL in thermals. We are flying 30+ miles from Wichita, KS where there is no air traffic around the private flying field we use with all the flights well above 400'.

It there are no specific laws concerning flying a quad at low altitude, and there is no evidence from a video due to the card being "lost", the guy shooting will have no case against the quad operator but the quad operator will have a good civil case against the guy who did the shooting and threatened him at gunpoint. Simple moral to this story: watch where the quad lands, get a license plant number if need be, and call the police. Don't be stupid enough to pull out a firearm shoot down a quad that is not threatening your life.

[rwanttaja]

The best, most legal method to take out an interloping drone is air-to-air...knock it out of the sky using your own drone.

You can build a simple RC airplane for less than a hundred bucks. With an electric motor and a small LiO battery, you can have a better than 1:1 thrust/weight ratio when the battery is fresh. Fly right at the bad guy and try to ram him. If it's over your location and as low as folks claim, you'd have a good chance of hitting him. Even if you miss, you'll probably spook the guy away. "Mission Kill", as the saying goes.

Taking out a $1000 quadcopter with a $100 RC plane is a pretty good deal. You can probably add a simple recovery parachute fairly easily. Even if you don't, the expensive bits are quite possibly going to come through OK for reuse. I've had some tremendous crashes with nearly full re-use of the receiver, motor, and battery.

And if the cops investigate, you were just doing the same thing as the other guy...if *he* claims to have a right to fly a drone at a particular location, it's hard for him to claim that you don't. You were just trying to fly close to let the guy get some neat video.

Ron Wanttaja

[martymayes]

And if the cops investigate, you were just doing the same thing as the other guy...if *he* claims to have a right to fly a drone at a particular location, it's hard for him to claim that you don't. You were just trying to fly close to let the guy get some neat video.

Can always use the motorist/motorcycle excuse: "I didn't see him"

But I agree, we crashed a foamie into a tree, collected all the pieces and was able to put it back together again into flying condition. Actually, I think it gets "better" with each rebuild.

[Candice Lane]

For those who are interested, you can visit noflyzone.org if you would like to register your home as a no fly zone. This program is still in its first phase and does not guarantee that you will have no fly-overs. However, there are several participating large name manufacturers that incorporate the no fly zone data into their drone firmware. It's a first step in the right direction.

[Aaron Novak]

Hey All,
I have flown models for pretty much my whole life, mostly aircraft and starting when you still built your own and FM radios were "New". I flew from parks, from AMA fields and even in my own backyard. I never once had a complaint, and in almost all the cases people would come out to watch for fun. Now enter the "drone" movement. It's an entirely new group of people and an entirely different hobby than model aviation. While aircraft and model rotorcraft are flown for sport, competition or scale, drones are flown for primarily one reason, photography. I tried to be interested in drones, but the more I dealt with them and their owners, the more apparent it became that they were not flying to fly, but instead to spy. As a 25 year AMA member I with they would get shut down if for nothing else than to preserve the image of model aviation for those of us that DONT fly things to spy on our neighbors.
-Aaron

P.S. an effective tool for drone removal is a fishing rod with extra strength line, and golfball, and a good casting arm.

[cub builder]

I can hardly wait for the Amazon Prime drone delivery. It's like Skeet shooting with a prize. :D

-Cub Builder

[rwanttaja]

I can hardly wait for the Amazon Prime drone delivery. It's like Skeet shooting with a prize.
Actually, that's a VERY good point. There a people now who follow UPS trucks to steal the deliveries. The Amazon zones will probably follow standardized flight paths.... wonder if the 12-year-olds that're developing the Amazon drone software know anything about SAM breaks? :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[hogflyer]

Can always use the motorist/motorcycle excuse: "I didn't see him"

But I agree, we crashed a foamie into a tree, collected all the pieces and was able to put it back together again into flying condition. Actually, I think it gets "better" with each rebuild.

Coroplast like the SPAD's use is much better for combat, or full contact - much more durable and should take down several of those rogue flyers before needing major repair. Coroplast is the material all these political signs are made of that looks like corrugated cardboard made from plastic. We've flown them with .25's and if you line the LE with music wire (or like some guys, clipped razor blades - but be careful handling it) they are almost indestructible. For those who have flown combat - it's not easy to fly full contact and hit another aircraft intentionally, but it could be enough to scare the rogue quad operator away from your area, and much safer than shooting off a firearm in a neighborhood.

Hogflyer

[Frank Giger]

Net gun.

Ehhhh, get off my lawn, darned kids!

They make some that will shoot a really long ways.

The hard part is following the "eat what you kill" rule.

[Floatsflyer]

I can hardly wait for the Amazon Prime drone delivery. It's like Skeet shooting with a prize. :D

-Cub Builder

This early onset stupid Amazon idea will go down in history along side New Coke and the Terrafugia and other similar lame brain flying cars. The VP at Amazon who thought this would be a game changer for the company in its desire to gain a competitive edge should be fired with extreme prejudice.

The obstacles, real and metaphorical, are too many to overcome; the threats to the safety and well being of everything in their path are too many to contemplate; the law suits will be too numerous and monetarily astronomical for even the deep, deep pockets of Amazon to prevent filing for Chapter 11.

Go ahead Amazon, make my day!!!

[rwanttaja]

For those who have flown combat - it's not easy to fly full contact and hit another aircraft intentionally, but it could be enough to scare the rogue quad operator away from your area, and much safer than shooting off a firearm in a neighborhood.
And to quote Daffy Duck: "Bethides, ith's FUN!"

Actually, while I acknowledge the difficulty in guiding an RC aircraft into anything but the ground, there's a lot of difference between a dogfight between two maneuvering aircraft and an unsuspecting drone. If it's stationary shooting video, might be pretty easy. If the guy is using a FPV setup to fly it, he may not even realize he's under attack until he loses the signal. You should be able to line up the interceptor with the target and just keep the lines of sight the same.

By the way, the most important aspect of the design is done... the Acronym: How about, "Drone EXTermination Intercept RC": DEXTIR

Ron "Get out the plastic sheets" Wanttaja

[Dana]

I used to fly Gremlin R/C combat, basically a super cheap foamie flying wing with a .25 max engine (there was also an unlimited class) and a 3 channel radio. Like control line combat, we towed streamers and tried to cut each other's streamer, but the only to do it was aim for the other plane. Midairs were not uncommon, but random.

[Mayhemxpc]

I am not an expert in this, but it seems that you can get a low-res fixed camera for about $50. Mount it at the CG of the airplane (not the point of impact) and it becomes like flying a Maverick missile to its target. Initially fly it like a normal RC airplane and then when it gets close switch to looking through the forward camera until impact. I think that the odds are pretty good for re-use later.

In article on UAV's in this month's Flying Magazine, a Supreme Court case was cited in which the court ruled that a land-owner had exclusive use of the "immediate reaches" of the airspace over that land. The court left the limits of "immediate reaches" undefined. Now the passage in that article was intended to argue for the use of commercial UAS in "the immediate reaches" of the property of a research institute or a another property owner (think farmers for agricultural use.) The converse would also apply in keeping unwanted UAVs outside of the immediate reaches of the airspace over your property.

[martymayes]

I think that the odds are pretty good for re-use later.

Provided the debris falls in an area where it is recoverable. If RC/drone parts start falling in my yard, finders keepers, lol.

[Bob Dingley]

Florida law permits a home owner to discharge a fire arm on his/her property as long as the birdshot does not leave the property. Lets see. Carefully selected fields of fire. Use the tree line as a back stop. Bring it on.

[Byron J. Covey]

Provided the debris falls in an area where it is recoverable. If RC/drone parts start falling in my yard, finders keepers, lol.


I would most likely give it a proper burial.

Drone? What drone officer?


BJC

[rwanttaja]

Drone? What drone officer?
"These aren't the drones you're looking for....."

Ron Wanttaja

[Mayhemxpc]

We are having WAY too much fun with this thread:)

[rwanttaja]

Provided the debris falls in an area where it is recoverable. If RC/drone parts start falling in my yard, finders keepers, lol.
That's why its important to keep DEXTIR's costs down. You have to assume it's non-recoverable after a successful intercept, either due to physical location or a mad-as-hell drone operator standing over it with a baseball bat. I doubt one will have to fly multiple missions, but, hey, a return bout might happen.

The most expensive part of an RC system is the transmitter, though, and that's not going anywhere. There are some cheap import RC component parts out there, and I'm about certain one could equip an interceptor for a hundred bucks or less.

My current thought is running along the planform of a MiG-21... delta main wing, with the elevators doubling for roll control. The swept-back leading edge will tend to deflect the RC with the least amount of damage, and with the elevators doing both pitch and roll, they're pretty protected and impact may not affect the control surfaces. 3 mm wings, with carbon fiber strips across the leading edges for both stiffness and durability. Maybe a 6 mm fuselage (profile type).

Park 250-class motor up front (maybe bigger, depending on the cheap clones available), small LiO battery (mission duration, with luck, will be only a few seconds). Should even be possible to add a semi-BRS; a "GI-Joe" type parachute with a servo to push it out of its case.

Busy this month, may try to build one in the fall.

There was a mention of a camera-type system. Probably too heavy for my design, but I think a "professional" setup should use some. Drones are interfering with Firefighting operations; if the Firefighters have big-boy DEXTIR systems with a camera system to let them fly right in, they could quickly clear the skies. "Whoops, sorry about that, Channel Eight...." :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[TedK]

How would a Drone respond to GPS Jamming? I wonder if a small 1.2 GHz noise jammer would act as a Drone fence...

[Mayhemxpc]

CAP and USAF are looking at aircraft mounted jammers for UAVs that intrude into a designated SAR or DR area. The issue is not keeping eyes out as it is avoiding mid-airs. (The risk is already significant from news helicopters and rubbernecker pilots who turn their transponders off to avoid being caught in a TFR. Now the pilot has to look out for things the size of a toaster oven, too.)

[rwanttaja]

CAP and USAF are looking at aircraft mounted jammers for UAVs that intrude into a designated SAR or DR area.
Man, that really depends on what the drone does with a Loss of Signal (LOS). It's probable it just continues at its current vector...and if it's stopped (to video a scene) it'll just (mostly) sit there. "Mostly", as they'll never been truly at rest, they'll drift a bit. But that would make them even tougher to spot.

Send DEXTIR (or an upgraded version with FPV) after them, and you'll guarantee they leave the operational area. One way or the other.

Ron Wanttaja

[Low Pass]

Man, that really depends on what the drone does with a Loss of Signal (LOS). It's probable it just continues at its current vector...and if it's stopped (to video a scene) it'll just (mostly) sit there. "Mostly", as they'll never been truly at rest, they'll drift a bit. But that would make them even tougher to spot.

Send DEXTIR (or an upgraded version with FPV) after them, and you'll guarantee they leave the operational area. One way or the other.

Ron WanttajaFriend of mine has a high-end amateur UAV. It returns to it's original launch point when it looses link to the pilot. But I seem to recall him saying this was a programmable feature also. Side note - his is a mid size unit and it is very hard to see from the air. We did some briefed and well-coordinated aerial UAV video work with a formation flight. It's doubtful you'll see one of these unless you're within 100-200 ft and it's not lost in the clutter of the ground. Video was amazing, btw!

[Infidel]

A paintball gun would be my choice and a whole lotta fun too!

[FlyingRon]

A few years ago our Navion national convention was supposed to feature a guy flying a radio control Bonanza past and allowing our contestants to try to hit it with paint ball rounds. Alas, our drone pilot didn't make the show so that event got cancelled since the event was in Bardstown KY we all went out to Makers Mark and drank bourbon instead.

[403057]

I believe Oklahoma has passed a law allowing property owners to shoot down drones over their property.
The drones are being used by cattle rustlers to scout out a cattle herd.

[ssmdive]

Note, he's not been charged with shooting down the drone. He's being charged with the fact that shooting skyward in the area was reckless (no matter why he was doing so). First rule of hunting is to assure yourself that what's beyond your target (i.e., where the shot that didn't get embedded in the target is going to go). Shooting birdshot into the air is not a gigantic risk to anyone on the ground.

[ssmdive]

Being both a pvt pilot and having flown model aircraft for over 40 years, I feel that anybody who thinks that it's OK to shoot down a quadcopter is just plain wrong. Being a pilot, and having flown model aircraft for 29 years I disagree with you completely. You buzz my house with a camera and try to look into my windows or spy on my underage kids and me shooting your drone is the least you can expect.
The cameras that are carried by these quads are very small, have a very wide angle (120 to 160 deg is pretty much standard depending on the type of camera), and don't have very good resolution They have good enough resolution to be used in commercial activities.
Further it is not OK to shoot any aircraft down that isn't directly threatening you with bodily harm. Your opinion. I guess if a guy was tapping into your computer you would not feel it was bad enough to shoot his computer? Plus didn't you say that they can be over 16 pounds and carry extremely flammable batteries? I don't know about you, but I consider you flying a heavy flammable object over myself and my house as "directly threatening me with bodily harm"
What happens if somebody does this in a typical city subdivision and misses? He shoots again with better aim.
What goes up must come down - either a bullet or lots of small lead pellets Birdshot is mostly harmless when shot into the air and it comes back down. I'd venture than you could throw it faster.
An Octocopter like I'm working on that will weigh over 16 lbs when flying will do a lot of damage if it's shot down and falls uncontrollably from 400'. LiPo batteries used on quads are very flammable and in dry conditions like in California can easily start a fire (and water only makes them burn hotter and faster). Then maybe you should not fly them over someone or someone else's house if they are so dangerous?
Discharging a firearm in a reckless manner like this is just pure stupid, dangerous and very negligent. The shooter has confessed to what appears to be two felonies involving a firearm and needs to be prosecuted, even if it requires a change of venue. It is no more reckless than you flying your dangerous flammable toy over my head.
I don't buy the "reasonable and necessary" defense as Meridith could have called the police and reported it The quad flyer could of also not been a jerk and not flown over someone else's house with a dangerous toy.
Dropping charges could also lead to more quads being show down GOOD
and an an armed confrontation as somebody tries to retrieve their quad, a gun is pulled on them with a threat to shoot them, and they in turn pull a gun in self defense with the end result in somebody being shot and seriously injured or worse. Many people have a CCW and carry all the time. Yep, like people who own houses and don't want perverts filming their daughters.
As far as the quad operator, without any evidence of intentional peeping, there's not much they can do as it's just hearsay. They can blow the stupid toys out of the sky.
Don't be stupid enough to pull out a firearm shoot down a quad that is not threatening your life. Don't be stupid and fly your dangerous toy over my house. Plus didn't you say that they can be over 16 pounds and carry extremely flammable batteries? I'd say that is a threat. I have 1/3rd sale planes and .90 sized Helicopters..... The trick is to not be a jerk and harass people with your toys.

[wyoranch]

I don't want to sound like I am over simplifying this topic, but if I see it hanging around my house filming whatever, it is GONE. Then I will deal with the owner coming to look for it. I live in Wyoming for a reason and that is EXTREME privacy. What goes on on my ranch is my business. I am an extremely law abiding citizen, but there is a line that is crossed when someone else feels compelled to invade my right to peace and privacy. Heck I won't even go to a neighbors house unless I call first, good manners and respect, let alone take pictures or crawl through their fences.
Rick

[Low Pass]

I don't want to sound like I am over simplifying this topic, but if I see it hanging around my house filming whatever, it is GONE. Then I will deal with the owner coming to look for it. I live in Wyoming for a reason and that is EXTREME privacy. What goes on on my ranch is my business. I am an extremely law abiding citizen, but there is a line that is crossed when someone else feels compelled to invade my right to peace and privacy. Heck I won't even go to a neighbors house unless I call first, good manners and respect, let alone take pictures or crawl through their fences.
RickI wouldn't think you'll have many private UAVs buzzing around your house in rural Wyoming. Much more likely it'll be one belonging to The Dear Leader. Let us know how taking a shot at one of those works out! :)