Father shot down drone hovering over his house as his daughters sunbathed

[Arkain2K]

Father who shot down drone hovering over his house as his daughters sunbathed
is arrested and charged - sparking new privacy debate

Meredith, pictured with his wife, said of the drone: 'We need some laws in place to handle these kind of things'​

A father has been arrested after shooting down an $1,800 drone that was reportedly hovering over his two sunbathing daughters.

William H. Merideth, 47, from Kentucky was charged with first-degree criminal mischief and first-degree wanton endangerment.

The owner of the drone claims he was only trying to take pictures of a friend's house when Merideth shot at the device, sending it crashing into a field near his yard last weekend.

Sunday afternoon, the kids – my girls – were out on the back deck, and the neighbors were out in their yard," Merideth told WDRD. 'And they come in and said, "Dad, there’s a drone out here, flying over everybody’s yard."

'I went and got my shotgun and I said, "I'm not going to do anything unless it's directly over my property,"' he added.

At that time, the drone was hovering over the house of a neighbor, Kim VanMater, who has a 16-year-old daughter who likes to lay out by the pool.

VanMeter said: '(The drone) was just hovering above our house and it stayed for a few moments and then my daughter finally waved and it took off.'

It then allegedly flew over the Merideths' garden.

Mr Merideth said: 'Within a minute or so, here it came. It was hovering over top of my property, and I shot it out of the sky. I didn't shoot across the road, I didn't shoot across my neighbor's fences, I shot directly into the air.'

Four men were about to confront him after the drone was shot out of the sky, but he says they soon changed their minds when they saw his firearms.

'I had my Glock on me and they started toward me and I told them, "If you cross my sidewalk, there's gonna be another shooting,"' Mr. Merideth told the station.

The police arrested him soon afterwards.

Mug shot: Merideth was apprehended for "wanton endangerment" and "criminal mischief"​

Mr. Merideth said he is looking into what legal action he could take in response to the incident. He said he only fired his weapon because it was hovering over his home.

Merideth added that he was disappointed with the police response.

'They didn't confiscate the drone. They gave the drone back to the individuals,' he said.

'They didn't take the SIM card out of it…but we've got…five houses here that everyone saw it – they saw what happened, including the neighbors that were sitting in their patio when he flew down low enough to see under the patio.

The FAA's recommendations include: 'Don't fly near people or stadiums. You could be fined for endangering people or other aircraft'​

According to the Academy of Model Aeronautics safety code, unmanned aircraft like drones may not be flown in a careless or reckless manner and has to be launched at least 100 feet downwind of spectators.

The FAA says drones cannot fly over buildings -- and that shooting them poses a significant safety hazard.

'An unmanned aircraft hit by gunfire could crash, causing damage to persons or property on the ground, or it could collide with other objects in the air,' said FAA spokesman Les Dorr.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...harged-criminal-mischief.html#article-3181965

Kentucky laws vague regarding drone use and personal privacy


BULLITT COUNTY, Ky. (WDRB) -- His story made national headlines in less than 12 hours and a lot of people are standing behind the Bullitt County man who was arrested after shooting down a drone.

According to Hillview Police, William Merideth broke the law when he shot his gun within city limits.

Some Kentucky lawmakers and advocates say things need to change regarding his family's right to privacy.

"I agree with the homeowner -- drones are invasive," said Eric Guster of Guster Law Firm. He appeared on the Fox News Channel Wednesday morning after Merideth’s story gained national attention.

"If a drone is hovering over your house, do you reasonably believe that it's invading your privacy, taking pictures of your wife, is it peering into the bathroom? Those are types of things that drones can do," said Guster.

That's what William Merideth says he was worried about. Sunday evening, his daughter noticed a drone flying over their house in Hillview. Merideth got his shotgun and shot it down.

“If he would've just flown over my property there wouldn't have been a word said,” said Merideth. “But when he hovered above my property for more than a few seconds, I feel like I had the right to defend my property."

Merideth is now charged with wanton endangerment and criminal mischief because he fired a gun within city limits.

Defense attorney David Mejia says using a shotgun may not have been the best option, but he would have no difficulty defending Merideth in court.

"He believed it (threat) to be imminent, he believed it to be immediate and he honestly subjectively believed that his right as a Kentucky citizen permitted him to protect his privacy and that's what he did," Mejia said. "He put that gun to the use for which it was designed and manufactured and it worked."

There are video, voyeurism, and trespassing laws -- but there do not appear to be any Kentucky or federal statutes relating to privacy specifically involving drones.

The FAA says it has the responsibility to keep the airspace safe from the ground up. Typically, regular aircraft fly above 500 feet.

According to the Academy of Model Aeronautics Safety Code, drones should not fly higher than 400 feet.

But what about the airspace directly over your home? An FAA spokesperson says he's asking its attorneys for an answer.

"Right now there are no guidelines to these unmanned drones," said Merideth.

Rep. Diane St. Onge, House District 63, is trying to change that.

"I think this is exactly the type of issue that we need to be addressing,” she said.

For the past two years St. Onge has sponsored legislation to regulate drones and protect people’s privacy. Those bills never passed.

"Should this have been passed and heard and passed last session,” said St. Onge, “perhaps this incident that happened with this gentleman -- shooting down a drone hovering over his backyard -- would not have occurred because we'd know the parameters are and what the law is. The law enforcement would know what to do."

Merideth now hopes more politicians take notice.

"There needs to be federal guidelines on the way these people can operate these and collect data,” he said.

A judge will ultimately decide what happens to Merideth.

St. Onge says she plans to reintroduce her drone bill later this summer.

http://www.wdrb.com/story/29665291/kentucky-laws-vague-regarding-drone-use-and-personal-privacy

 

[Arkain2K]

thats crazy. my neighbor was flying his drone with a camera attached to it over and around my house day before yesterday. we called him and asked him to please not fly it over our house or property. he said its not illegal to do so but would try to avoid our property line. as far as we could find out, there is no california law prohibiting him from flying over our house or property. its a very invasive feeling.

It will soon be illegal if this Senate Bill 142 passes:

Jackson Bill to Prohibit Drones from Invading Our Privacy and Private Property Advances
July 14, 2015​

SACRAMENTO – A bill by State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) to prohibit drones from trespassing on private property without the owner’s permission and invading Californians’ privacy passed out of the Assembly Judiciary Committee today on a bipartisan vote.

California law already prohibits someone from entering someone’s private property – their home or backyard, for example – without their permission, and prohibits them from photographing or recording conversations. Senate Bill 142 clarifies that the rules pertaining to trespassing also apply to entry by remotely operated aerial vehicles known as drones on private property. The bill would create a drone ‘no-fly zone’ of 350 feet above private property.

“Drones have a lot of helpful and extremely innovative uses. But invading our privacy and property without permission shouldn’t be among them. When we’re in our backyards, with our families, we have an expectation that we have a right to privacy, “ said Jackson. “Drones have upended all those expectations, and it’s important that we set reasonable boundaries so that our privacy and security remain intact. This bill would extend our long-established definitions of trespassing and privacy, and bring them into the 21st century, by applying them also to drones.”

SB 142 would not impact of the use of drones in public spaces – such as roads, beaches, schools, public utility easements, and other spaces where drone use is not restricted -- nor in the space approximately 350 feet or more above ground, which is subject to federal regulation.

Owners would also be free to use drones on their own property, or on property in which they had been given permission by the owners to use drones. Personally ordered packages could still be delivered to one’s front door by drone, should that one day become a viable option.

The bill follows numerous public incidents with drones. Drones have recently been found impeding fire-fighting efforts. In the past few weeks, a woman in Washington state was knocked unconscious by a drone falling out of the sky. Jackson’s bill was introduced days after a drone was flown onto the White House lawn. Following the incident, President Obama called for more regulation of drone use.

Often, drones are equipped with video cameras and sound-recording equipment. As they become more widespread, the potential for colliding with established privacy rights increases.

“This bill establishes clear rules so that we can prevent problems from occurring,” said Jackson. “Drones are an emerging and exciting technology. But because they can easily travel over fences and other structures, we need to take extra precautions to ensure they don’t compromise our privacy or security and blur long-standing boundaries between public and private space.”

Oregon currently has a law in place, passed in 2013, prohibiting the flying of drones over private property without permission up to 400 feet.

The bill now heads to the Assembly floor.

Jackson is chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees legislation on privacy issues. She represents the 19th Senate District, which includes all of Santa Barbara County and western Ventura County.


http://sd19.senate.ca.gov/news/2015...ing-our-privacy-and-private-property-advances

If it's adopted into law in California, other States will follow.

AWESOME- thanks for that info Arkain2K!

It's official. Now you can tell your creepy-ass neighbor that the 350 feet of Californian airspace above your property belongs to you:

California paparazzi no longer can use drones over private property under new law
By Andrea Noble - The Washington Times
Wednesday, October 7, 2015

The governor approved prior legislation last year aimed at reining in aggressive paparazzi practices, but lawmakers said the new legislation was needed to close a loophole. It clarifies that it is considered trespassing for paparazzi to fly a drone over private property.

California State Assemblymember Ian Calderon said lawmakers heard from residents at a meeting earlier this year that paparazzi were using the tactics despite the legislation on the books.

“At that hearing, we learned that the paparazzi have used drones for years to invade the privacy and capture pictures of public persons in their most private of activities — despite existing law,” he said in a statement.

The new law establishes a property right in the airspace that spans 350 feet directly above private property. It will ban drones from crossing over property lines and fences to hover above private homes or properties for the purpose of capturing images, Mr. Calderon said.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/7/california-paparazzi-no-longer-can-use-drones-over/

 

[5H3RD0G]

Drones should not be flying anywhere they want they should have a dedicated air space confined to the owners own air space. If you want to fly it anywhere by a ton of land in which to do it. :icon_chee Everyone should have the right to destroy objects that don't belong in there territory. Drone age of privacy invasion has begun.

 

[sky]

Finally, the paparazzi have done something good for a change. No one will care about the ordinary citizens and their asshole neighbors, but when the rich, wealthy, and famous get their privacy invaded, watch the lawmakers spring into action.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Firing the shotgun sounds reckless.

 

[bjjHERRERA]

It's official. Now you can tell your creepy-ass neighbor that the 350 feet of Californian airspace above your property belongs to you:

THANK YOU Arhain2k!!

 

[RafailNadull]

The whole spying drone thing clearly hasn't been legislated on properly yet but the guy seems like a nutjob. I mean,

I had my Glock on me and they started toward me and I told them, "If you cross my sidewalk, there's gonna be another shooting,"

lol

 

[bjjHERRERA]

but that says "paparazzi and celebrities". does it protect private citizens? because i read he vetoed that original
bill-

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/...rnor-jerry-brown-news-photographers/71987132/

 

[Ruprecht]

Would have been charged with firearms offences here.
Are you allowed to shoot in suburban back yards in Kentucky?

 

[Arkain2K]

but that says "paparazzi and celebrities". does it protect private citizens? because i read he vetoed that original
bill-

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/...rnor-jerry-brown-news-photographers/71987132/

There were actually four seperate drones-related bills sent to the Governor's desk this summer.

The three anti-trespassing bills regarding all drones flights "over private property", "over K-12 schools", and "over prisons" all got vetoed last month, only the personal privacy bill strictly for "drones equipped with camera flying over other people's private property" got signed into law this month.

Which means the neighborhood pervert can't film people's backyard pools or peek in your windows anymore, but I fully expect drone cargo drops over prison yards to continue.

 

[Fight To Win]

I completely agree with the man's actions. There needs to be a precedent set that these drones just can't fly over someone's property so some pervs can record some footage of young girls sunbathing. That's sick... Even if that wasn't the objective, it is flying over private property, almost certainly recording footage for little to no other discernible reason. It is an invasion of privacy in a time when we have increasingly less privacy.

 

[bjjHERRERA]

There were actually four seperate drones-related bills sent to the Governor's desk this summer.

The three anti-trespassing bills regarding all drones flights "over private property", "over K-12 schools", and "over prisons" all got vetoed last month, only the personal privacy bill strictly for "drones equipped with camera flying over other people's private property" got signed into law this month.

Which means the neighborhood pervert can't film people's backyard pools or peek in your windows anymore, but I fully expect drone cargo drops over prison yards to continue.

ahh.. ok- thanks for clearing that up

 

[Cayenne]

Definitely a loophole in the law if pedos are allowed to fly drones to film their neighbours' daughters. People are entitled to privacy on their own property.

 

[skombolis]

Fuck that drone. One of the times I'm glad someone had a gun. And fuck the four perverts that thought for a second they were going to start some shit. The owners of the drone should be charged. We need to update privacy laws.

 

[JDragon]

I completely sympathize with the shotgun guy.

We are gonna get a lot more problems in the next few years. People are already flying drones near airports, are interfering with air rescue helicopters, have been used to scout nuclear power plants (in France, nobody knows who it was)... as these things get more common and cheaper, there will be HUGE problems because a lot of stuff is not regulated yet and / or hard to enforce.

This exact situation is also a nightmare. Imagine your kids playing naked in the (not visible from the outside) garden. Any idiot with a drone can fly over, scout the neighbourhood and transmit the pictures / video. Nothing needs to be stored on the drone (at least I assume that is the case), so there would be no direct evidence.

This is a real legal issue, btw. Does your property also include the airspace above it? And if so, up to what height? I would expect that most legal experts would answer "no" to this question, but I may be wrong.

 

[skombolis]

Finally, the paparazzi have done something good for a change. No one will care about the ordinary citizens and their asshole neighbors, but when the rich, wealthy, and famous get their privacy invaded, watch the lawmakers spring into action.

Truth

 

[GriftyMcGrift]

dang he shoulda went with this instead

 

[spikemma]

Im taking this national and already have please be with me!

Mods please

 

[Scrody]

Good for him.

 

[spikemma]

The whole spying drone thing clearly hasn't been legislated on properly yet but the guy seems like a nutjob. I mean,



lol

Why do people like you act so fucking ignorant?

 

[JDragon]

Good for him.

What? Getting arrested?

 

[ShinkanPo]

So what happened to the pedo copter

 

[The Diplomat]

The whole spying drone thing clearly hasn't been legislated on properly yet

Yeah, the technology is too new, and congress hasn't decided anything yet. But more cases like this, and there will be some legislature involved with the legality of civilians flying their own personal drones.

If it's over private property, that's definitely a no no. The police should have confiscated it, just so they could see what was on the tape. Give the drone back in the end, if you want.

But yeah, from what I heard, his kids are in the 14 year range and they were sunbathing in their backyard. I'd be pretty pissed too, if a drone was hovering above the house. It essentially renders privacy fences obsolete.

 

[IDL]

This one is kinda funny @ 11:50

An activist group air dropped propoganda leaflets onto an NSA building from a drone


or skip direct
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fK0KRlqF3_Y&feature=youtu.be&t=710

 

[Juventud]

I'm pretty anti-gun but this guy did nothing wrong. Hopefully he's cleared.

 

[bufetadanacara]

Even if they don't have a camera, I wouldn't want it flying over my property.
First of all, it is a nuisance, but there is also a certain risk of the drone losing control and crashing and damaging someone or something. I view it like trespassing.

Now, adding a camera to the drone makes it creeping and very offensive.

I'm glad to see that this guy shot down the drone.

 

[jk7707]

I understand the guy's concerns, but his reaction was idiotic. Not only is he shooting in the middle of a suburban neighborhood but what happens if that drone he's shooting at crashes into something or somebody? My guess is that he'd be responsible. Also threatening to kill the operators when they came to confront him doesn't make him look any better.

 

[bubkusjones]

I completely sympathize with the shotgun guy.

We are gonna get a lot more problems in the next few years. People are already flying drones near airports, are interfering with air rescue helicopters, have been used to scout nuclear power plants (in France, nobody knows who it was)... as these things get more common and cheaper, there will be HUGE problems because a lot of stuff is not regulated yet and / or hard to enforce.

This exact situation is also a nightmare. Imagine your kids playing naked in the (not visible from the outside) garden. Any idiot with a drone can fly over, scout the neighbourhood and transmit the pictures / video. Nothing needs to be stored on the drone (at least I assume that is the case), so there would be no direct evidence.

This is a real legal issue, btw. Does your property also include the airspace above it? And if so, up to what height? I would expect that most legal experts would answer "no" to this question, but I may be wrong.

It may not (I don't know), but with the proliferation of privately owned, cheap, camera equipped drones like this one, that status should change. We're allowed fences and tall bushes/trees to provide us privacy from our neighbours/the general public when on our property (especially back yards). Windows come with curtains or blinds for the same purpose when indoors. Now that those are no longer sufficient to give us our privacy on our own property due to these drones, the definition of what is private property needs to adapt and expand to include the airspace above.

 

[Orgasmo]

There should be some regulations regarding drones seeing how the increased use of them will cause privacy issues.

 

[ShinkanPo]

Even if the drone did not fly over to his property I asume it can still zoom in a bit and get a good view of the man's yard.

 

[VulcanNervPinch]

I completely sympathize with the shotgun guy.

We are gonna get a lot more problems in the next few years. People are already flying drones near airports, are interfering with air rescue helicopters, have been used to scout nuclear power plants (in France, nobody knows who it was)... as these things get more common and cheaper, there will be HUGE problems because a lot of stuff is not regulated yet and / or hard to enforce.

Yep.

People need to get on drone regulation quickly.

 

[RoryFan]

Even if the drone did not fly over to his property I asume it can still zoom in a bit and get a good view of the man's yard.

Fuck it I'm just gunna repost from the other thread.

You know what's better for taking pictures of your neighbors...

The UAV hate is fucking ridiculous. Paparazzi invading your privacy is fucked, but that's been going on for a long arse time. You throw the word "drone" into the mix and suddenly everyone is shitting eggs.

 

[BVG]

The whole spying drone thing clearly hasn't been legislated on properly yet but the guy seems like a nutjob. I mean,



lol

This honestly is what gets me about the story...

Possibly taking photos of his daughters was wrong, but you can't elevate that situation to shooting guns and then threatening people directly with your guns as well.

He should have just called the cops on the drone.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

Fuck it I'm just gunna repost from the other thread.

You know what's better for taking pictures of your neighbors...

The UAV hate is fucking ridiculous. Paparazzi invading your privacy is fucked, but that's been going on for a long arse time. You throw the word "drone" into the mix and suddenly everyone is shitting eggs.

How much is that lens compared to a cheap drone with a cam attached? I believe the latter is significantly cheaper, thus more likely to be a problem.

 

[Ruprecht]

I completely sympathize with the shotgun guy.

We are gonna get a lot more problems in the next few years. People are already flying drones near airports, are interfering with air rescue helicopters, have been used to scout nuclear power plants (in France, nobody knows who it was)... as these things get more common and cheaper, there will be HUGE problems because a lot of stuff is not regulated yet and / or hard to enforce.

This exact situation is also a nightmare. Imagine your kids playing naked in the (not visible from the outside) garden. Any idiot with a drone can fly over, scout the neighbourhood and transmit the pictures / video. Nothing needs to be stored on the drone (at least I assume that is the case), so there would be no direct evidence.

This is a real legal issue, btw. Does your property also include the airspace above it? And if so, up to what height? I would expect that most legal experts would answer "no" to this question, but I may be wrong.

It's already illegal here, but enforcement is an issue. You can't just blaze away in the suburbs.
Most drones I've seen record footage, because the footage over the FPV setups is pretty average.
All the better FPV footage you see online is the locally recorded footage, not what's transmitted.

 

[RoryFan]

How much is that lens compared to a cheap drone with a cam attached? I believe the latter is significantly cheaper, thus more likely to be a problem.

Do you know the kind of quality cameras you get on cheap drones?

Do you know what sort of range you can get a clear picture with a 5.6ghz receiver?

If you really want to take pictures of your next door neighbor it's still way cheaper and more effective to use a regular camera.

 

[JDragon]

I understand the guy's concerns, but his reaction was idiotic. Not only is he shooting in the middle of a suburban neighborhood but what happens if that drone he's shooting at crashes into something or somebody?

But it didn't. To me, this was an act of self-defense. Seriously.

My guess is that he'd be responsible. Also threatening to kill the operators when they came to confront him doesn't make him look any better.

Well yes, but the way I read the story, the drone operators were pissed about their property being damaged and were about to enter his premises. I would not tolerate that, either, if I had the means to prevent it.

 

[Codger]

Do you know the kind of quality cameras you get on cheap drones?

Do you know what sort of range you can get a clear picture with a 5.6ghz receiver?

If you really want to take pictures of your next door neighbor it's still way cheaper and more effective to use a regular camera.

I don't either of those two questions are especially relevant. Some people are happy spying with shitty pictures. And this quality will increases dramatically very quickly.

If your neighbour has fences then it might not be easier. you might not fancy getting caught standing on a crate with a camera but spying with a drone feels a lot less risky I'm sure.

One way or another they need to legislate on these things. You can't have people flying these things over peoples properties or spying on them.

I reckon this will be a technology that we regret creating in terms of privacy. Also in terms of security in general - it might render anti-terrorist security useless in the near future. Whilst you've got soldiers searching people for guns and explosives at the gate one of these things will be able to deliver a bomb right over their heads with pinpoint accuracy.

 

[Abezal]

Still waiting for pics of the sunbathing women, was the trouble worth it.

And would there be less crazy ways of bringing it down then a shotgun.

 

[JDragon]

I reckon this will be a technology that we regret creating in terms of privacy. Also in terms of security in general - it might render anti-terrorist security useless in the near future. Whilst you've got soldiers searching people for guns and explosives at the gate one of these things will be able to deliver a bomb right over their heads with pinpoint accuracy.

As I wrote earlier, drones have been used to scout a French nuclear power plant. Putting a gun on a drone is not too difficult. And the prospect of guns delivering poison or explosives is insane.