Man Arrested and Charged After Allegedly Shooting Down a Camera Drone with a Shotgun

Do we know if the guy admitted to doing it?

For the reason I mentioned, if he didn't admit it, they're going to have a difficult time proving he did it...

Drones are going to be a huge source of legal fighting in the future. One of these days a drone will be flying over a house or park and crash, killing a kid..... Then what?

delta0014 wrote in post #17191638
Drones are going to be a huge source of legal fighting in the future. One of these days a drone will be flying over a house or park and crash, killing a kid..... Then what?

Then you treat it the same as someone flying a plane or driving a car. You investigate, determine if there was any fault, and proceed accordingly.

Road Dog wrote in post #17191636
Do we know if the guy admitted to doing it?

For the reason I mentioned, if he didn't admit it, they're going to have a difficult time proving he did it...

That is what juries are for if it comes to trial: Man was found with a recently fired shotgun in the area the witness heard the shots from (A residential area by the sounds of things) and a drone had just recently been taken down by pellets from a shotgun.

Care to offer a reasonable argument most juries might be willing to believe?

Luckless wrote in post #17191621
And we are keeping things in context: He is facing a fine and a few days/months in jail, rather than a year or more...

He discharged a firearm in a violent and malicious act, and should be punished as such. The willfully destroyed someone's property, apparently over land he didn't own, and such actions should not be tolerated.

Agreed. A few days in a cell should do him well.

Road Dog wrote in post #17191574
Why would you want to see that happen?

A concealed weapon had absolutely nothing to do with this incident. If the guy intentionally drove a golf cart into a lake, would you want him to forfeit the family sedan?

He had demonstrated either ignorance or intentional neglect of firearms laws. He should not be allowed to carry a gun in public until he proves otherwise. Period.

elitejp wrote in post #17191582
I agree with most of your points for fining him but like im saying he wasnt aiming the gun at a person and no one here can factually say that he is the type of person who would point the gun at a person. And even if he was....HE DIDNT. So keeping it in context and innocent until guilty the guys offense was shooting down a drone....not shooting a person, not endangering someones life, not threatening someones life. So lets look at what he did rather than going on the deep end and making things up. If he shot a person holding a camera, even if the person had ill intents while taking photos, I would completely agree that jail time,confiscation of all weapons etc be sentenced on him

Road Dog wrote in post #17191588
I'd like to know how they're going to prove that this guy fired the shot that took the drone down. A shotgun isn't like, say, a pistol. There's no way to forensically match the pellets from a shotgun shell to the shotgun that fired them...

If you believe that, I've got some ocean-front property in Montana you'd just love.
Duh! Really? The drone was carrying a camera. A recently fired shotgun, found on location by the police. Pellets matching those in other ammunition he has on hand. Statements from neighbors and bystanders. His own admission. A chimp could get a prosecution in this case. I hope he pleads and takes his medicine. He acted irresponsibly. He should just own it, and move on.

I have a hunch that signal jammers for the frequencies these drones use are going to become rather popular.

TRFARMS wrote in post #17193786
I have a hunch that signal jammers for the frequencies these drones use are going to become rather popular.

And are already generally illegal and dead simple to locate...

I thought a drone was something that dropped bombs on Iraq?

Neilyb wrote in post #17196665
I thought a drone was something that dropped bombs on Iraq?

They use Jets to drop bombs too... Guess you couldn't possibly book a flight on something called a jet aircraft to travel between cities.

They also use cameras to target those bombs, so you should probably be careful where you point yours, as obviously all cameras are parts of dangerous weapons.

Luckless wrote in post #17191642
That is what juries are for if it comes to trial: Man was found with a recently fired shotgun in the area the witness heard the shots from (A residential area by the sounds of things) and a drone had just recently been taken down by pellets from a shotgun.

Care to offer a reasonable argument most juries might be willing to believe?

Given that the only evidence is a recently fired shotgun, I wouldn't bother.

What you're describing is circumstantial evidence. Unless you can physically link that shotgun to the drone, reasonable doubt will likely exist.

Dude walks...

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17191662
He had demonstrated either ignorance or intentional neglect of firearms laws. He should not be allowed to carry a gun in public until he proves otherwise. Period.

Do you ever drive over the speed limit?

By doing so, in theory, you're recklessly endangering others. Either through ignorance or intentional neglect, you're breaking traffic laws.

Yet I would be rather sure would argue that you shouldn't have to give up your license...

Um... So what?

Unless the camera was pointed at the guy with the shotgun, the camera means nothing. If it was pointed at the guy, well, that would probably clear this whole affair up pretty quickly...

Actually, the article states that there were "holes that resembled the pellets". Now, I admit that it's a poorly worded sentence, but it doesn't convince me that they have the pellets and, in fact, I would be surprised if the did...

Really? Where are those? I must've missed them when I read the OP. Surely you can point those out to me...

Do we know if he admitted it? If he did, slam him. I have no problem with that. If he didn't, though, I think a prosecutor would have, at best, a very difficult time prosecuting this...

Um, a "prosecution"?

Thank you, F. Lee, for that insightful, on-point legal analysis.

Let me help you out: A "prosecution" is nothing more than the presentation of a case against a defendant. That's it. It has absolutely nothing to do with guilt or innocence. I'm pretty sure you meant "conviction" and, no, it probably wouldn't be as simple as you seem to believe...

Road Dog wrote in post #17210221
Given that the only evidence is a recently fired shotgun, I wouldn't bother.

What you're describing is circumstantial evidence. Unless you can physically link that shotgun to the drone, reasonable doubt will likely exist.

Dude walks...

unless the drone took one last pic of the shooter

I don't think he denied it. I think he did in on purpose to make a statement about privacy. His defense will be that the device was violating his rights and it was a form of self defense.

I'm waiting for drone-killer drones to start popping.

Funny how times have changed. It was likely only just over a year ago that I first heard about lawmakers discussing laws to legalize private use of drones.

My immediate reaction was "I'll shoot the damn things down!"