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

Ruprecht said:
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.
Click to expand...

So the drones transmit only what you use for navigation purposes? Do I understand that correctly?

In that case, what happened here is a real scandal. The police failed to secure possible evidence.
 
I'm a little late to the party, but here's my two cents:

Shoot the drone down, find out who the pervs are that are scoping out my daughters, and put the fear of God into them.

That simple. Case closed. Peeping Toms have had their faces broken by fathers since the beginning of time, and we're not too good for it in the 21rst Century.

This could all be avoided, of course, if people had common decency and respect for one another.

Those things, among others, is why we can't have good things in the US like we did even in the 80's and 90's.
 
Drone ought to have GPS data showing where exactly it was, until then I'll just say that Meredith sounds like a nut.
 
My neighbor shot a drone a few months ago. No national story.
 
A few years from now all sensitive public buildings will have lasers to shoot down any drones detected. I am sure the US has already deployed this technology to US soldiers so I wouldn't be surprised if nuclear facilities, airports, etc are next.
 
JDragon said:
But it didn't. To me, this was an act of self-defense. Seriously.
Click to expand...

Well obviously the police didn't.



JDragon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Who knows. It doesn't go into specifics besides the fact that the guy threatened them.
 
Bohdan said:
A few years from now all sensitive public buildings will have lasers to shoot down any drones detected. I am sure the US has already deployed this technology to US soldiers so I wouldn't be surprised if nuclear facilities, airports, etc are next.
Click to expand...

It's going to get a little weird, because shipping companies like Amazon are currently developing systems to allow for drone delivery of packages.

On one hand you have people who don't want them around, and on the other the multi-nationals and other businesses are going to be pushing hard for this.
 
JDragon said:
These were underage girls you sicko.
Click to expand...

That it may or may not have taken photos of.

Would you shoot or threaten to shoot anyone who pulls out their cellphone at a public wading pool where kids are playing in their bathing suites?

I'm gonna guess you wouldn't.
 
Target load or buckshot?

I may need a dedicated drone defeating shotgun for home use.
 
Videer said:
Drone ought to have GPS data showing where exactly it was, until then I'll just say that Meredith sounds like a nut.
Click to expand...

IMO you can only operate a drone on public property and your own premises. This shit needs to be made illegal really quick.

I mean, technically it won't be a problem to make micro-drones in a few years from now. If you have a drone that's the size of a dragonfly or even smaller, you will not be able to prevent people spying on you wherever you are. This is why there must be strict regulation on this.
 
Abezal said:
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.
Click to expand...

1) I knew there are pedos in our midst.

2) Sure, I guess he can throw his shoes at it.
 
“I think it’s credible testimony that his drone was hovering from anywhere, for two or three times over these people’s property, that it was an invasion of their privacy and that they had the right to shoot this drone,” Judge Ward told the courtroom. “And I’m going to dismiss his charge.”


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



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.
Click to expand...

So he was in the right for threatening to murder someone because they wanted to retrieve they property he had illegally destroyed? That makes no sense.
 
Case Dismissed Against William H. Merideth, Kentucky Man Arrested For Shooting Down Drone

The case against a Kentucky man who was arrested after shooting down his neighbor's drone was dismissed on Monday.

William H. Merideth was cleared of first-degree endangerment and criminal mischief charges Monday when a judge ruled he had the right to shoot down David Boggs' drone.

"I think it's credible testimony that his drone was hovering from anywhere, for two or three times over these people's property, that it was an invasion of their privacy and that they had the right to shoot this drone," Bullitt County Judge Rebecca Ward said, according to NBC affiliate WAVE.

Merideth was arrested in July and admitted to shooting down the drone. He told NBC News at the time that the device was flying near his yard and he "had no way of knowing (if) it was a predator looking at my children."

"I feel good. I feel vindicated," Merideth said Monday. "I was being watched. It was an invasion of privacy and I just, I wouldn't have put up with it no more," he told the station.

Boggs told NBC News in August that he wasn't doing anything malicious while flying the $2,500 camera-equipped drone.

"I don't think that the court looked at what really took place here," Boggs said Monday. "I'm dumbfounded. I really am."

Boggs has the chance to appeal the case in front of a grand jury — and he told the station he plans to do just that. "This is a victory for him today, I guess. But it's far from over," he said.

FAA drone guidelines say that drones can't be flown "near people or stadiums" but don't specify a permitted distance.

The FAA announced earlier this month that recreational drone operators will soon be required to register their aircraft. A task force of more than two dozen people will be responsible for creating guidelines for the national registry by Nov. 20.


http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...rideth-kentucky-man-arrested-shooting-n452281
 
BVG said:
That it may or may not have taken photos of.

Would you shoot or threaten to shoot anyone who pulls out their cellphone at a public wading pool where kids are playing in their bathing suites?

I'm gonna guess you wouldn't.
Click to expand...

If these same people used a really long selfie stick to film across my fence and then tried to enter my premises after I destroy said cell phone, I probably would.
 
I read earlier that the judge threw out the charges because two witnesses saw the drone below the tree line. Maybe someone has an english source.

Drone dude is pissed and wants to pressure DA to appeal

Edit: nm, thought this was news and this thread has already been passed through although it was only yesterday
 
BVG said:
That it may or may not have taken photos of.

Would you shoot or threaten to shoot anyone who pulls out their cellphone at a public wading pool where kids are playing in their bathing suites?

I'm gonna guess you wouldn't.
Click to expand...
Of course he wouldn't.

Location: Germany
Click to expand...
They don't do the shoot people if they piss you off thing in Germany afaik.
 
Lawmaker again filing bill to address drone usage in Kentucky
10/23/2015 07:44 AM

​


State Rep. Diane St. Onge, R-Lakeside Park, is pre-filing legislation which addresses privacy issues related to how drones are used by law enforcement personnel to collect evidence.

BR 197 would prohibit a law enforcement agency for using a drone to obtain evidence without a search warrant.

St. Onge says that the aim of the bill is to protect citizen’s rights.

“What are the parameters that need to be put forward, that would allow for people who want to use drones legitimately, the right to do that, yet, still protect the citizens right to privacy,” St. Onge said.

When it comes to the use of private drones in the United States, 4th District U.S. Congressman Thomas Massie, R-Vanceburg, admits that the rules and regulations are cloudy, or in some cases, non-existent.

“Well. Right now, it’s sort of the Wild West in the United States in regard to drones and drone policy, Massie said.

St. Onge plans on filing a second bill this week concerning the growing private use of drones which could intentionally or unintentionally threaten citizens.

“We struggled with this one and worked very hard to find some sort of compromise situation which would protect someone from a drone hovering over their property such as with the gentleman in the Bullittsville area,” St. Onge said. “What we came up with, you can look at it from the perspective of trespass or harassment. Because with harassment, there is an intent there to annoy someone. And so, with this, if you do this, the first time would be a violation, the second time this would be done over the same property would be a class A misdemeanor, and the third and subsequent times would be a class B.”

http://mycn2.com/politics/lawmaker-again-filing-bill-to-address-drone-usage-in-kentucky
 
JDragon said:
So the drones transmit only what you use for navigation purposes? Do I understand that correctly?

In that case, what happened here is a real scandal. The police failed to secure possible evidence.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if you watch this video from 1:05 he shows the recorded footage then swaps over to the fpv footage at about 1:15.

That's a typical setup.
Chances are the flight would have been recorded on the drone to confirm whether or not he was perving on the girls.
 
Sadly as drones become cheaper and more available I wouldn't be surprised if we see a lot of despicable pedophiles and perverts purchasing them and using them in a nefarious manner

I sympathize with the guy because if I had daughters and I thought some POS was trying to record video of them sunbathing I'd also be extremely pissed off but it was a poor decision on his part to shoot it down
 
Juventud said:
I'm pretty anti-gun but this guy did nothing wrong. Hopefully he's cleared.
Click to expand...

+1
Im not very pro gun but In some cases... One should be able to defend his property and privacy. FIlming ones daughter... If it was my daughter, Id lose it.

And anyone crying about how it could hurt someone when it fell. Get serious. Paranoia.
Practically zero chance of that while the privacy has been invaded 100 percent.
 
Last edited:
7437 said:
So he was in the right for threatening to murder someone because they wanted to retrieve they property he had illegally destroyed? That makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Admittedly I do not know the details of the situation, so I am making some assumptions here. But if four men (pissed off men) tried to enter his premises without his consent, I do think he had the right to scare them off and wait for police to regulate the matter.

I also agree it doesn't really make him look like a very nice person, but consider the context here. These people - at least in his mind - flew over his house, recorded his daughters sunbathing, and then had the nerve to demand the return of said drone and wanted to enter his premises.
 
BVG said:
That it may or may not have taken photos of.

Would you shoot or threaten to shoot anyone who pulls out their cellphone at a public wading pool where kids are playing in their bathing suites?

I'm gonna guess you wouldn't.
Click to expand...

This was private property. If somebody was holding their cellphone over your fence while your daughters were sunbathing would you be OK with that?

I'm gonna guess you wouldn't be.
 
War Shotgun guy!

The protection of your family (and that includes their privacy) is far more important than any silly city ordinance.

This is why you always keep a good waterfowl Shotgun handy :icon_chee
 
7437 said:
So he was in the right for threatening to murder someone because they wanted to retrieve they property he had illegally destroyed? That makes no sense.
Click to expand...

He didn't threaten to murder anyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,882
Messages
55,452,195
Members
174,783
Latest member
notnormal

Share this page

Back
Top