(quoted from post at 19:49:19 01/14/16)
(quoted from post at 16:07:23 01/14/16)In the second place you shoot one down that's been registered with the FAA and you are out of local jurisdiction and can be charged in federal court, not the local guy.
Prove it. While its a well known fact that anybody can be sued by anybody for anything, that doesnt totally hold true for police and the DA. They need proof. Judges require it and the public demands it. Judges and DAs are ELECTED after all. They go against the community norms, whatever they are (and they are different in all parts of the country), and the community tends to elect dfferent people to represent the community. Think about that, local sheriff goes all Barney Fife, starts arresting people accused of shooting down drones and the public is gonna get unhappy with him, guess what happens next election?
(quoted from post at 16:07:23 01/14/16)
Third place this incident took place BEFORE the FAA got involved with drones. With the new rules it's a new ball game.
FAA has ALWAYS had control of airspace, they just recently made very public statements about them. That dont mean they didnt have control of the airspace before. What does that mean? It means that case was a legal precident setting case. It means if the exact same thing happens today, its HARDER to prosecute someone that shoots down a drone.
(quoted from post at 16:07:23 01/14/16)
If you bother to read a little law it's illegal under federal law to shoot at any [b:a27cc9562e]REGESTERED[/b:a27cc9562e] aircraft. Those new rules didn't go into affect until Dec 15, Merideth shot that drone down in in Oct 15. Plus they don't go into it but the DA can appeal that decision.
So you are saying that if someone fails to registertheir drone, it gets shot down, the shooter didnt violate the law because it was an UNREGISTERED drone? You seem to be misunderstanding the law. Thats important because no matter what side of the issue you are on, you need to use the law to your advantage.
(quoted from post at 16:07:23 01/14/16)
[b:a27cc9562e]Plus the owner of the drone in question has sued in US District Court as of last week. So it's not done yet.
[/b:a27cc9562e]
So unless you are willing to sacrifice your money (legal fees and possible fines, your freedom and possibly your guns you better think before you shoot.
Rick
Appeals are common, dont mean nothing. What means something is: ya gotta have proof. I mentioned this in another thread about drones, without proof (and that proof MUST stand up in court), nothing is going to happen. The police wont, no, they CANT arrest someone if there is no proof. What proof is there? Some drone owner calls the cops, says the neighbor shot down his drone, come arrest that jackwagon. Cops show up, neighbor tries to tiptoe around the story but finally has to admit he was snooping into neighbors house/barn when drone is shot down. Drone owner says arrest him. Cop has to tell the guy he was tresspassing. Drone owner says "so what, bla bla bla, felony, bla bla bla, FAA, bla bla bla, FCC, bla bla bla and on and on. Cop relents, says "OK, show me the video". Drone owner shows him. Cop sees a person in blue jeans, tan coat and ball cap exit house. Person is unidentifiable as to gender, is beteen 4 and 7 feet tall and is carring a broom handle like stick in his/her hand. Seconds later, stick is pointed toward the tresspassing drone and then the video stops, screen goes fuzzy (drone crashes).
You know whats going to happen now? Cop is gonna ask drone owner "Who is that and what did I just see?". Drone owner is gonna say, "Farmer Brown just shot down my drone, arrest him". Cop is gonna say, "how do you know?". And here is the fun part, drone owner is gonna say, "Because thats Farmer Browns house". Cop will then roll his eyes to himself and tell the drone owner that he will talk to Famer Brown.
Cop shows up at Farmer Browns house, knocks on door and IF(and that a really big IF) anybody answeres the door, Farmer Brown comes to the door wearing red jogging pants and a blue tshirt with beer stains on it. Cop asks Farmer Brown if he owns any guns. Farmer Brown laughs and asks cop what he thinks, its Wisconsin afterall (insert your own gun friendly state). Cop asks Farmer brown if he had any guns out today. Farmer Brown says "I would have to ask my legal council before answering that." Cop outright asks Farmer Brown if he shot down the illegal drone. Farmer Brown sees where this is going and says "looks like you think I did something illegal, so with that, I got nothing more to say till I talk to council. Now, am I free to go?". Now is another fun time, Mr cop has to decide if he wants to put his reputation and career on the line. Is he going to follow standard procedure by mandating that there is a credable witness or credable proof (video) and arrest or because of a lack of either, let Farmer Brown walk. That happens hundreds of thousands of times a day, if not millions, cop cant do squat if there is no proof. Is he going to risk his livelihood for some tresspassing drown owner? Some cops might and we will likely hear about it in the news. But we wont hear about it too much.
Will some Farmer Browns get busted? Sure, some will. Is it likely if they follow the SSS theory? Highly unlikely, almost impossible. I know this upsets the drone lovers but its the truth, there ARE well established ways around incidents where drones fly in the path of some lead shot.
People have to remember, we are a nation of laws. Both sides of the law have the same opportunity to know the law and use it to their advantage. Look at Chicago, its a gang war zone. Literally. More deaths there than in over seas war zones. Why dont they have all the bad guys in jail? Cops cant catch them is why. If the cops dont see it, it they dont have credible witnesses or other proof, they cant do anything. The animals in Chicago know that, they use it to their advantage. Like it or not, it works. Learn from it or not, its up to you.
