Man shoots drone hovering around his yard.
yay or nay?

http://www.cnet.com/news/man-shoots-down-drone-hovering-over-house/

Merideth says he stood his ground: "I had my 40mm Glock on me and they started toward me and I told them, 'If you cross my sidewalk, there's gonna be another shooting.'"   

It's not a drone!
But mine can do this

Merideth says he stood his ground: "I had my 40mm Glock on me and they started toward me and I told them, 'If you cross my sidewalk, there's gonna be another shooting.'"   

It's not a drone!
But mine can do this

===========
I want a 40mm glock.

From the standpoint as a Dad with a daughter, I am inclined to side with the shooter.
People (and animals too) are notoriously protective of their children. I think we all know and understand that concept.

Shoulda used a pellet gun.

Shotgun blast onto the air in a residential area is pretty extreme.

My daughter outside, I would've definitely pot spotted at it with my pellet gun.

It's kinda cool he actually dropped it though.

Would a pellet gun drop a drone, though? And if so, would the laws in his area be any more lenient on him if he had used a pellet gun? He'd still be shooting into the air.

Man shoots drone hovering around his yard.
yay or nay?

http://www.cnet.com/news/man-shoots-down-drone-hovering-over-house/

That clay pigeon cost more than $5!

Would a pellet gun drop a drone, though? And if so, would the laws in his area be any more lenient on him if he had used a pellet gun? He'd still be shooting into the air.

yes. depends on where you shoot it. Take out a motor on a quad = yes. If its a hex or greater than a shot to the flight controller. Another way is to target its control link. DJI uses WiFi and Bluetooth in some modes to control the quad which is weak.

Would a pellet gun drop a drone, though? And if so, would the laws in his area be any more lenient on him if he had used a pellet gun? He'd still be shooting into the air.

I don't know but my pellet gun is way quieter than my 12 ga.

22 pellet. Might or might not drop it but pot shots would be fun.

Still irresponsible but way less than a shotgun. Like shooting at squirrels or birds in a tree.

yes. depends on where you shoot it. Take out a motor on a quad = yes. If its a hex or greater than a shot to the flight controller. Another way is to target its control link. DJI uses WiFi and Bluetooth in some modes to control the quad which is weak.

...
Here's a question.
I see the 400 ft altitude limit rule.
Is there a MINIMUM altitude rule?
What's to stop a perv from flying just above the house and grabbing some internet voyeur video?

An emp gun would be good. No projectiles and no laws broken.

Drop it and sell the parts on ebay... well, the non-fried parts that is.

...
Here's a question.
I see the 400 ft altitude limit rule.
Is there a MINIMUM altitude rule?
What's to stop a perv from flying just above the house and grabbing some internet voyeur video?

FAA established the 400 foot ceiling, there's no minimum altitude.
I think privacy and/or property ownership laws cover 500 feet above your property.

A Larue PredatOBR would work! Tried and true!

FAA established the 400 foot ceiling, there's no minimum altitude.
I think privacy and/or property ownership laws cover 500 feet above your property.

...
The article said the drone was at 200 ft.
So that would mean it was trespassing?

...
The article said the drone was at 200 ft.
So that would mean it was trespassing?

Depends.  Air rights are probably different from place to place.

...
The article said the drone was at 200 ft.
So that would mean it was trespassing?

In the US we own the air space up to 500 feet above the land we own. If the guy was renting from the owner of the land then he may not have the right to shoot at the drone because he is not the land owner. If he is the owner of the property then he would have the right to shoot at it up to 500 feet. After that the FAA controls the airspace above 500 feet. I think a pellet gun would have been appropriate for this purpose.

So if you can't fly above 400 or below 500 then that means you have almost nowhere to go except public parks.

So if you can't fly above 400 or below 500 then that means you have almost nowhere to go except public parks.

Well the elevation can be dependent on location as well.  Certain areas such as near airports you aren't going to even be anywhere near that 400ft.

In any case it's one of those areas where the tech is so new that a lot of these rules & regs still need to be worked out.

Where did the article say the drone was at 200 ft? That is fairly high up.

Where did the article say the drone was at 200 ft? That is fairly high up.

...
I think it was mentioned by someone close to the story in the comments section.
I don't consider 200 feet that far up. It's 70 yards. Much less than a football field.

People are debating the drone height and stuff now in the comments. Article has been updated several times as well.

Wow some of the comments are pretty heated, feels like not everyone speaking is a neutral party. I can't tell who's right or wrong but just from the style of the arguing, I feel like the people who side with the shooter are more reasoned and impartial. The drone supporters are claiming the drone was not over the guy's property at the time it was shot. But by their own admission, it WAS clearly over his property prior to being shot, and (according to them) left his property line a measly one or two seconds before actually getting shot. Who the bleep cares about that? If the drone was really 200+ feet in the air at the time (according to them) someone on the ground looking up with his eyes cannot be expected to know if the drone is one or two inches on his side of the fence or theirs, at the exact time he presses the trigger.

What matters is that the drone was over the guy's property for some time, and the guy shot it down while it was roughly still there. I hope a judge sees it my way if this thing ever goes to court.