A Solution To Intrusive Drones

Rate this post
Drone, it's the new Skeet

Drone, it’s the new Skeet

The law is still very fuzzy on the safety and privacy issues associated with drones

So while the subject remains unsettled, please allow me to suggest one humorous answer. If a drone strays onto private property, like over a swimming pool or near a window, it should be considered a SKEET, and on presentation of its parts to local authorities, a bounty should be paid to the shooter.
When the drone’s owner arrives to claim drone parts, the owner may retrieve the fallen drone by paying a sum matching the bounty paid to the shooter.
Does this sound like a good idea?

PS: Of course, it is NOT a good idea. I am just trying to inject a little humor into the morning. But the availability of drones to a broad number of people will certainly become a problem to safety, privacy and even “homeland” security.

Please follow and like us:
0
 

0 responses to “A Solution To Intrusive Drones

  1. Suppose a government owns the drone and decides to prosecute the owner of the land upon which the drone is found, even if the owner did not shoot down the drone?

     
  2. I think it depends on what the drone was doing in the sky above said house in the first place. Many kids received drones for Christmas. They are basically expensive motorized vehicles, like flying motorized helicopters or airplanes. My son’s (a gift from grandparents) got stuck in a neighbor’s tree on his first attempt to fly it. We were not videotaping neighbor, being obnoxious, etc. This neighbor has a small dog that often sneaks into my yard and I happily return the dog home, free of charge. To not give a child his toy back is just being a crabby old stooge. But if an adult is spying on you, that’s a different story.

     
  3. As far as I’m concerned, anything and anybody that is on my property without my invitation (friends) and consent (e.g., USPS & other letter-package deliverers; water-meter readers) are intruders, and will be treated as intruders. And that includes drones.

     
    • Amen and Amen! As far as I am concerned since I have high taxes for my property–I’m claiming the air above my spot of ground. Other people, without invitation, just do not belong there. This seems like a fairly simple, straight forward, common sense idea!

       
    • Dr. E—consider this—when my neighbor’s 100-foot pine fell completely across my 100-foot-wide property during a freak wind/rain storm here in So. CA Sept., 2014…the LAW and the INSURANCE considered it MY PROBLEM b/c it was on my property and my neighbor’s insurance, and my neighbor, were off scott-free. We sustained about $75,000 of damages to pool, a barn, belongings….etc….and the LAW says that ONCE that tree left my neighbor’s property and caused any harm to mine…it was MY TREE and MY PROBLEM. (UNLESS—-this is the caveat——unless we had warned the neighbor in writing—I suppose notorized—-PRIOR. THEN….and only THEN, would it be the neighbor’s problem). So, I suggest, in these times of the law being late to “catch up” to technology….that you should: 1) post your property and warn neighbors in writing that you will confiscate any drone should it fly over your “air space” and/or, 2) You throw a net over it and by the “tree law” that applied to me—-once the tree fell into MY space, it was mine. Same with the drone, IMO. This is all “new” in law…and so, it’s going to take cases like this, with reactions to the drone as I’ve just described, to go to court and show the prescidents….AND, just in case quibblers might assert that there was “no harm done” when their drone flew over….so this sort of law can not apply to drones …….I will direct you to the US Constitution that assures us reasonable expectation of privacy in our own homes. If someone transgresses that —–damage has already been DONE.

       
      • About the neighbor’s pine tree that fell into your property:
        I would sue the neighbor in small claims court, and make a case that the neighbor should have known the danger. Being small claims court, you can only get $3T maximum, but it’s still better than nothing.

         
  4. Kevin J Lankford

    I have to wonder why all this controversy never rose over remote controlled model airplanes, as technically they also are drones? The only real advantage these new drones have is their ability to hover, also they are or can be silent. Yet they both are readily weaponized in some form, or capable of surveillance.
    Could it be that government wants all rights to their use, and prohibit the public advancement of the technology.

     
    • I imagine the very same arguments could be made in the case of radio controlled planes,too-if they were commonly equipped with cameras,video recorders or weaponry,but that stuff was relatively unheard of back then.

       
  5. I would like to see TD’s idea expanded to small aircraft and helicopters. Yes, I understand the power company following the power line that goes across our place. Yes, I understand the patrol following the creek/river just south of us looking for those growing drugs. These two activities are obvious, easily spotted, do their thing and leave and are done about twice a year. I am talking about the aircraft that just keeps coming back, leaving then circling back over, then leaving and circling, and…. you get the idea. Try working a herd of cows or sheep with this flying over head? Anything in the airspace close enough to earth that bothers me or my animals needs to be used as skeet.

     
  6. Rather than shotgun – how about a slingshot with a rock? WAY harder to pin on anyone, and then no one can be prosecuted for “discharge of firearms within city limits” or other such nonsense.
    😉

     
  7. We had a neighbor a while back who was into these little p.o.s.My wife and I would sit on the back deck conversing and all of the sudden this contraption is hovering 40 feet away .
    Went inside , got the shotgun out and pointed it it’s way . Needless to say I never had another problem with it . He wasn’t too happy about it , but w.t.f. !

     
    • japoa, you are man after my own heart. 😀

       
      • It was so funny , I kinda hid it behind me as I went out the door ….As soon as I aimed , that thing took off like a bat outta hell . Then I went out to the front of the house and the schmuck was still out there . All I did was smile at him . I did not get a smile from him , damn , don’t know why !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

         
  8. Pingback: A Solution To Intrusive Drones | Patriots Feed

  9. And when it’s a government drone, load up with buckshot.

     
  10. Besides the ability to hover is the ability to stream video. That’s the big difference.
    I’m not an expert on guns but it seems discharging a gun into the air is dangerous (and perhaps illegal) unless you live in Montana.
    No wait, that might be the muster signal for the militia, in which case you’ll have a couple of dozen camo pickups in your front yard with flags waving.
    A pocket EMP thing you could aim, that would cause the POS to drop out of the sky and maybe fry the electronics.

     
  11. Well, I don’t know about it not being a good idea… the personal air defense systems market could be quite lucrative. 🙂
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Hawk_Firing_2.JPEG

     
  12. Pingback: A Solution To Intrusive Drones – On the Patio

  13. hvgarvey@comcast.net

    Sounds great to me!

     

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *