For sure the laws are going to be adapted, but I don't think its about more "rights" to the space, any more than if someone decides to sit down in your front lawn and not move, they have more "rights" than you. But you really don't have the right to act violently to resolve the situation; you have to get the police to handle it rather than take the law into your own hands. Or if someone parks their car in your driveway, you can't smash their car up, you have to get it legally moved or have the police deal with it, but in the meantime, your driveway is blocked. This is the price of a civilized, law-abiding society. It is doubtful even with changes to the law that property owners will ever have the right to destroy drones for simply hovering over their property.

Not sure I buy that. I've seen plenty of people violently ejected from private property. When the police arrive they usually arrest the trespasser not the evicter. I'm talking about bars and retail establishments but private property is private property.

As to a somebody operating an aircraft "in" my backyard. If it's below the tree canopy and I can safely remove it I may do so. Violently. If it comes within arms reach that in my mind is a danger. I will protect myself as seems right for the moment. Not going to worry about the law at that point.

You can point out the details of the law. But cops often talk about what a "reasonable" person would do. I suspect we are going to find that "reasonable" people are quite willing to take a stick or baseball bat to drones that come within their reach. Even if it's not in their backyard. If and or when these cases go to court I'm not betting on the drones rights. Yes I agree discharging a firearm in these situations is excessive.

It's happened multiple times now in various places that people have destroyed a drone flying over their property, and the property owner has been the one arrested, not the drone operator. Go ahead and take your chances with that.

Also note: Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the bill in California that would have made it illegal to fly a drone over private property. So nowhere in the U.S. is it any form of trespassing. While you might get away with some use of force to eject a trespasser, if you destroy a drone, you are the only one who is actually breaking any law. Makes it pretty simple for law enforcement in that case.

True. As I said, you never know what that guy will do or why. I believe there were enough votes to override his veto when the bill was passed, so I guess we'll see what is next.

Not true. We went through this ... the common law/statutory law dichotomy, remember? Just because there is no cause of action under statutory law does NOT mean that there is no cause of action under common law.

Understood, but to date, common law has not protected anyone who has destroyed a drone and statutory law resulted in them arrested and liable for damages. You may like your chances, and being a lawyer yourself, you may be able to prevail, but for most of the people who are doing the chest-thumping about smashing drones out of the air, it would cost them plenty whether they were to win or lose, and their chances aren't going to be as good. It's a risk I personally would not take.

Lets just say that I would caution anyone aiming to fly a drone over other people's property that they are risking a lawsuit. And if their drone is destroyed while doing so, any decision to sue for the loss of that drone will risk a countersuit for nuisance, invasion of privacy, and trespass under common law.

Edit: Make that "aiming to fly a drone at low altitude over other people's property."

Can you supply references of people being arrested for destroying a drone. When I google it I see people being arrested for shooting the drone which is the same as illegally firing a firearm in an unsafe manner. And there are people who have been arrested for attacking the drone operator. Do you have any references where somebody destroyed a drone on his private property without resorting to firearms and is arrested. The chimp doesn't count because technically he was already behind bars.

Go ahead and start smashing drones with a baseball bat then if you feel it's all OK. Let us know how it turns out for you.

Not certain, but Vic is an engineer, I believe. I followed this thread with interest, I have a BA in Law, not a lawyer, I am an engineer (BEnvE), I hope that the legal authorities get this straight, it seems that getting a drone flying close enough to you could be dangerous. What are the limits about how close they could come to you before its TOO close,other than if the hit you with it.

I'm the worst possible thing ... an engineer and a lawyer. I think that's why people avoid me at parties.

I wont be sharing news of that here.

Ask the state ledge to start issuing Drone tags and establish a Hunting season ..

Note that if you are a Senator, you can probably shoot drones out of the sky with impunity in your home state.

From an earlier FAA link, "...and remain at least 25 feet away from individuals and vulnerable property."

GH

Oh, Vic, I am so sorry, that is horrible that you are hung with two appellations that tell the world to laugh and make jokes about you. Personally, I haven't ever been invited to a party, so I guess that explains it for me, too.

Bill

Would think this is a valid point that will have to be addressed legally. In this particular case the OP could have been distracted, injured or killed because of the manner in which the drone was being operated.

If drones are aircraft why do they not require a licensed pilot?

some do require licensing.

Another example of why progress is not always a good thing. As a model maker and the owner of an RC sailplane I know that most modellers are pretty responsible and abide by the rules of the AMA. The fact that anyone with limited skills now has the power to follow and harass someone is certainly not a good thing for society in general.

I apologize in advance. I just couldn't resist. This has been gnawing at me since yesterday.

An engineer dies and reports to the pearly gates. St. Peter checks his dossier and says, “Ah, you’re an engineer — you’re in the wrong place.”
So the engineer reports to the gates of hell and is let in. Pretty soon, the engineer gets dissatisfied with the level of comfort in hell, and starts designing and building improvements. After a while, they’ve got air conditioning, flush toilets, and escalators, which makes the engineer a pretty popular guy.
One day God calls Satan up on the telephone and says with a sneer, “So, how’s it going down there in hell?”
Satan replies, “Hey, things are going great. We’ve got air conditioning and flush toilets and escalators, and there’s no telling what this engineer is going to come up with next.”
God replies, “What??? You’ve got an engineer? That’s a mistake — he should never have gotten down there; send him up here.”
Satan says, “No way. I like having an engineer on the staff, and I’m keeping him.”
God says, “Send him back up here or I’ll sue.”
Satan laughs uproariously and answers, “Yeah, right. And just where are YOU going to get a lawyer?”

Or, God could just bring Vic in and solve both problems! , if Vic ever stops riding long enough to make it to the Pearly Gates. But, he will need to be at least 200 miles away from them, or he won't fool with registering for a short ride, regardless of the destination.

Bill

Ever noticed how the 50+ gang can just "drone" on about most any topic.

I've noticed we drone on about anything. I've also noticed, since I've been here, that our most heated/lively conversations are nothing like some of the other forums. I was doing a little research on chain lube and was astonished as to the excitability (that's a really really mild word) for the exchange between everyone. It wasn't over different brands. The heated exchange was over the variations in one particular brands. I would have thought the mods would have intervened, but then I guess they were as entertained as I over the absurdity of the exchange.

Could it be that we're less excitable because of the following:
1. We're busy riding our bikes.
2. Our blood pressure and beta blocker meds keep us calmer.
3. We're just older and wiser.
4. All of the above.
5. None of the above. We're just an all around great group and folks and if you don't believe it, just ask us.

Lol ... one of my friends put it nicely a few weeks ago (when referring to my biking obsession):

"Vic, you'll outlive us all, if you don't kill yourself first!"



BTW, nice one tg16! I love lawyer jokes, and have a good cadre of them ... all inappropriate for a family forum, though. I wonder if being 50+ changes that?

My wife is an accountant and she always rolls her eyes when I tell this one at her office parties. "Why do people become accountants? They failed the personality test for undertakers."

Meds and untreated low T. I'm convinced of it.