Shooting down drones....
 

Dude was an idiot for using a firearm - but I can agree with his reasons.

How long till these things start being a serious nuisance?

I know if they start buzzing around invading my airspace because people can't extend common courtesy when dealing with anyone but themselves - I have something for them.


Their flight controllers are aren't shielded - so some creative use of my soldering iron and some parts and I will have a way to insure my privacy from people who want to use these things for nefarious reasons.

Now the have HD cameras, but how long till they start snooping on wireless and other signals?

A guy a couple doors down has them. I haven't introduced myself to him yet but ive gotten close when i hear that thing buzzing around. Its way up in the air but over our backyard so i go out there and motion towards it in case it does have a camera...

Bow and arrow legal? ?

Just remember what goes up, must come down.

Yeah i know but. ...
Lol you can adjust the power of an arrow.still not right and was said jokingly

Nah man my bad, didnt even see the drone, was just playing catch with my boy and i lost control l, my bad...

Dude sounds like a typical gun owner and the type of dude who will have nobody to blame but himself when guns finally get outlawed. "Cross that sidewalk and there will be another shooting"? I have a bettet idea, how about you explain why you just put some 00 buck into someone's property?

Dude is a retard.

Drones? Meh. People have always spy'd on other people and drones are no different. Plus, drones are too damn obvious to be used for malice.

I agree, He shouldn't have shot the damn thing down with a real gun. Also threating is not that smart either.

He should have talked to the owner first, give him a warning. then if it happens again, use a pellet rifle (which is legal) and once something like that flies over the house, pew pew, down goes frazier.

How far does ones property extend vertically? This is a question i think that will eventually be answered. Because if it's an imaginary line from your property limits up to space, aren't there a lot of things invading your personal property all the time?

Qft ^

The sky is the limit.

as a property owner you only really have the right to the airspace above your land located in the lower stratum, the precise boundaries of which are not explicitly labelled. In the end, you are supposed to be entitled to enough airspace to reasonably enjoy the land below that air. However, exactly what this means is up for debate. For example, you can’t ask commercial planes to stop flying over your house, because the sky is considered to be a public highway. You could potentially, however, prosecute an overzealous news helicopter for hovering over your house if it was impeding your enjoyment of the land. Again, this would vary on a case-by-case basis but there have been instances of people being fined for trespassing for flying over someone’s land; so it’s not unheard of in US or British law.

Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos means "whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to Heaven and down to Hell."� This property right principle asserts that a person who owns a particular piece of land owns everything directly above and below that piece of land, no matter the distance, and can prosecute trespassers who violate their border on the surface, underground and in the sky.

The issue with bringing them down is that the FAA considers quadcopters/drones/etc to be aircraft.

Hence why you have to bring them down with something they can't see, or see you do lol.

Or this :

xm42.com

Watch the video. Wait to the end.

I'd like to see specific legal examples of this being tested though, copying and pasting information from random websites doesn't really cover it fully.

Its first use in court is attributed to the case of Bury V Pope in 1587, during which the maxim was cited as justification for a large structure being erected that blocked out the natural light to another property owner’s home. Since back in those days there was no such thing as the “right to light” (essentially the right to not have the flow of natural light to your home impeded), it was decided that the building of the structure was entirely legal, since the owner of the land owned all of the air above his land too.

Case of United States v. Causby; The most famous case of this kind comes from 1945 when a chicken farmer named Thomas Lee Causby sued the US government for flying approximately 83 feet above his property, the noise of which caused a bunch of Causby's chicken's to accidentally kill themselves by running into walls. Causby won his case and the courts agreed that although a property owner wasn't entitled to own all of the air above their land,they were entitled to enough so that planes flying overhead wouldn't kill their chickens.

In the UK thanks to the Civil Aviation Act of 1982, the generally accepted amount of air above one’s roof a person is entitled to is approximately 500-1,000 feet, though again this isn’t a hard definition. Likewise, the United States has a similar estimation of about 500 feet, though this has never been officially ruled on by the Supreme Court.

Co2 BB guns would work like a charm.