|
|
Post by Sci-Fi on Dec 10, 2013 7:42:50 GMT
Check this crap out. www.cnn.com/2013/12/10/us/colorado-town-drone-ordinance/index.html?hpt=hp_t2There's some guys out in Colorado, that are vowing to try and shoot US Government drones out of the sky if they see them. They're also trying to pass a bounty, in their down for parts of US drones, specificly with US markings on them. *Shakes head* These are no different from manned planes that fly over head every day, or choppers that do so (Less frequently) Interesting note, the FAA's response. "In fact, the FAA is keeping a close watch on Deer Trail's special election. It issued a statement that sounded like a warning. "Shooting at an unmanned aircraft could result in criminal or civil liability, just as would firing at a manned airplane," it read." So I was right in the Amazon Drone thread. You go to shoot down drones and it'll be charged the same or similar to shooting at an airliner or other aircraft. Neither of which is going to be anything remotely to good for the person doing the shooting. These idiots should remember. "If it's close enough for you to see it and hit it with a gun, you're close enough to be on camera shooting it, being beamed back to where ever is running the drones." |
|
|
|
Post by Sci-Fi on Dec 10, 2013 7:52:12 GMT
Found this a minute or two after the first story. Video of these guys. www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2013/12/10/erin-pkg-cabrera-colorado-drone-hunting.cnn.htmlTake a gander. It's amusing. The guy is already printing out 'novelty' Drone Hunting licenses, (The shot of him using a little hand held blow dryer to dry the ink is great) and he's got a totally 'tacti-cool' double barrel, short barrel shot gun with a large scope on it and a flash light, that he gesticulates to the sky with, and then proceeds through out the story to shoot repeatedly up into the air (at nothing) apparently, in the middle of his town. lol. Then it goes on to show the former mayor saying he'd do the same if a drone was 'Peeking in his window, or scanning him with it's powers" Now... who here remembers their science lessons when it comes to Gravity? (These guys clearly don't). Anyone wish to speculate as to the result of idiots shooting into the air at government and military drones? Anyone care to speculate as to what would happen if one of these nutjobs actually managed to wing one? And it crashes and burns in their town? Perhaps hitting a house or the school or something? Man.... I'm a gun owner. I am a member of the NRA. I support gun rights.... And I think there should be an IQ test before you can buy guns and some sort of 'Common sense' test too. Sheesh. |
|
|
|
Post by joshuagoliath on Dec 10, 2013 9:30:05 GMT
Some counter points:
A) Shooting at a privately owned drone is different than shooting at a US Gov't (or state gov't) owned one. Shooting at privately owned one would be more akin to shooting at a radio controlled plane flown by your neighbor's kid. This is especially true if said drone flies low enough (for whatever reason) to be considered "in" your private property boundry markers.
B) Deer Train, IIRC, is a primarily rural area, so realistically, the majority of it would NOT be "in the middle of town"- it's going to be out on some farmer/rancher's acres and acres of nothing, minimizing the odds that those rounds are coming down on something. Also, depending on the type of ammo used for a shotgun, when it DOES come down, there's a pretty good chance it's going to be no more harsh than a handful of pebbles thrown up in the air falling back down. Most drones have a pretty thin shell, and could be taken down with rock salt rounds...
C) This towns law was focused on the drones that have been breaking privacy laws. They've been used to fly over private property at low altitude, attempting to take video and photos (without permission, warrant, or probably cause). There's even been lawsuits across the country from the EPA using data found- there was one about a rancher who got sued for "creating a lake" on his private property, when all it was was a 2 foot deep area about 20 feet across that fills with water during the rainy season- and has been there for years, from natural erosion.
I could keep going, but do I really need to?
Oh, and on the point of "common sense test"- 90% of Americans would probably fail. We're a nation that's been filled with morons who can't decide anything for themselves, and only know what they're told to believe and think. The vast majority of Americans today have no common sense. Most can't figure out themselves which way is up, and which is down.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sci-Fi on Dec 10, 2013 9:41:28 GMT
Countering your Counterpoints. A) No, it's not the same thing. Drones are under the jurisdiction of the FAA since about 95. It would be akin to shooting at a 'private plane' not a radio controled toy. Add in the fact that they're purposefully going after governmental drones, up to and including a bounty on ones with US markings. B) If you read and watched, the ordinance stipulated 'In town' and for a limited area with in the town limits of about a mile I belive. More over the guy with his shot gun was standing on a (Ratty I'll give you) Street with other residences. US military drones aren't going to be brought down with rock salt. More likely they're not going to be brought down by an idiot with a shot gun either. C) No they're not 'focused on drones breaking privacy laws' It's a nutter and his nutter buddies wanting to shoot down US governmental drones. lol. You think the government is flying drones low and peeking in their windows, in a po-dunk CO town? The drone's aren't even there yet. There's talk of building a drone hub 'near by'. It's not like they're already getting buzzed. This is a pre-emptive move that they are, in their tinfoil hats, suspecting that are going to be flying around low to the ground peeking in their windows and 'scanning them'. As for the EPA... they have their job to do. One they can do with planes, choppers or drones. Drones are cheaper on the tax payer dime. Why not use them? These guys are paranoid tin foil hat wearin' nutters. They're talking about putting a BOUNTY on US governmental aircraft. lol. If they DID manage to shoot one down they'd spend years in federal prison. As for the common sense test? I think more than 1 in 10 people could pass. If not though, I'm ok with not letting them have guns. Such things as "If you're opposed to government using drones, would you "A" Try and deal with the problem legally, going through the proper channels to object to such thing, or "B" Make up fake permits, and even get an embossed seal made that says "Shoot um all" (Or whatever it was) and stamps that you dry with a hair dryer in your house, then go out and try and shoot down US Governmental aircraft with a shot gun" and someone chooses "B"... I'm ok with restricting that guy's gun privileges.  |
|
colonel wolfe
Junior Member
"I haven't done any research "-Steve Yune
Posts: 160 
|
Post by colonel wolfe on Dec 10, 2013 16:40:56 GMT
unless they have proof that someone is responsible for the removal of a drone from within the boarder of his property, have witnesses or video evidence, good luck with the Government making a criminal case against anyone found with the remains of a drone trespassing on his property.
Sci-Fi I agree with you that the presence of a drone is no more of a threat than of a helicopter or other manned aircraft that could violate a property owners air-space. but the Drone has received much negative publicity over the last few years thanks to the 12 years Military action by George W. Obama, being used to Murder People in Pakistan (via the "double tap method") and Spy drones found my other sovereign nations. People dislike the Idea of Drones and this is an isolated reaction, used by the Media to discredit people who oppose domestic drone use.
I'd like to point out that Ownership of Fire-Arms is not a "Privilege" as you state thou, it is a Right, just like the ones Covered by the other 26 Amendments... no one would refer to the 15th Amendment giving Former Slaves the "Privilege" to vote, or the 19th granting the "Privilege" to both Genders. or the "Privilege" of Free speech, Religion, press...
Owning a Fire-arm is a Right. (now I love the argument that it would only apply to guns that existed in the 1700's, as then Free speech and press would also only extend to existing media and technology of the time, so hope you enjoy the Gutenberg printing press as the only method to speech-protected news papers)
These Drone hunting permits are about as silly as the "Terrorist" hunting permits that are still in circulation post-9/11.
and if a City or County wants to issues a bounty on Drones, hey, this will play out well in court as a State v. Federal power play...
|
|
|
|
Post by Sci-Fi on Dec 10, 2013 22:40:16 GMT
Most of the drones aren't up there flying blind. They have cameras. Often more than one. The camera's run as they fly, as I pointed out, if you're close enough for a human to see and fire, especially with a shot gun, you're close enough to be on film. If the drone is lost they're going to send someone to it's last transmitted location to find it. If it's lost in an area where nutjobs are vowing to shoot down drones, they're going to send cops along with any techs. They will be able to determine if the drone was shot down.
As for the "privilege" I was speaking more hyperbolic there about the sorts that would go 'hunting' for governmental aircraft with shot guns in town. You're not wrong that it is a right. Albeit a conditional one. It should be noted that such rights are not universal or with out restriction. Your right to have a firearm can be taken away many different ways. One of them would be when/if you're charged with a felony, or gun related crime. Like recklessly discharging a firearm (Shooting into the air), or in many cases, discharging a fire arm in the city(Unsure if Podunk OK has this one) or very very much so "purposefully trying to shoot down a legal aircraft" Hell "Purposefully trying to shoot down ANY aircraft" and "Destruction of governmental property". heck with the laws the way they are now, they might even be able to hit the idiots with a terrorists charge. Now that might be a stretch, but it might not. These guys are proposing to purposefully shoot down US aircraft, and even are proposing a bounty for doing so.
You're not wrong that drones, in part have gotten a bad wrap, but more over seas than here. To be honest, most people have very little problem using drones to blow up terrorists and what not. It's a case of 'NIMBY'. Sort of like Nuclear power plants. To be honest there's been surprisingly few incidents with them, but the ones that happen and bad press have painted them badly to public preception.
|
|
colonel wolfe
Junior Member
"I haven't done any research "-Steve Yune
Posts: 160
|
Post by colonel wolfe on Dec 10, 2013 23:03:05 GMT
Then All rights are conditional. your freedom of speech is limited in a court room situation, and in some cases as in Tampa last year, Limited to "Free-speech" zones. your Freedom to Religion is limited as voluntary prayer at school no outlawed. freedom of the press is regularly overturned as journalists are forced to divulge protected sources, the 4th and 5th Amendments are under threat by all kinds of changes to the structures of our law systems. notably, surveillance drones that are small enough to not have to obey FAA air-space guidelines and fly low enough to get shot by red necks with Shot-guns. ...and if a drone is low enough to actually be shot down by one of these Idiots, the Drone operator is most likely doing something wrong. the main difference between MAV and UAV is that there has to be pilots on the MAV, leading to increased size and detectability. "Most" people wouldn't have an Issue with Drones being used to Murder "Terrorists" oveseas. but its the murder of 50+ members of their family that I have the Issue with, or the methods the CIA uses to detect "terrorist activity" which includes farmers in Pakistan who purchase fertilizer or own guns. Currently several Dozen Pakitani families are attmpeting to Sue the US government for wrongful deaths of in Drone bombings, most fail because their lawyers are unable to get Visa's to come to Us courts. www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/world/asia/us-drone-strikes-are-said-to-target-rescuers.html?_r=0 |
|
colonel wolfe
Junior Member
"I haven't done any research "-Steve Yune
Posts: 160
|
Post by colonel wolfe on Dec 10, 2013 23:08:31 GMT
and if the drone unit has accurate enough 360 degree cameras that allow it to spot a person 500+ feet away clearly enough to positively identify them as someone shooting at it, then it is the exact kind of Surveillance drone these idiots are worried about.
|
|
|
|
Post by joshuagoliath on Dec 11, 2013 5:33:57 GMT
It's not drones as weapons platforms that I have a particular problem with, nor is that what these hicks are referring to. There has been a severe issue in the past few years of ILLEGAL spying on Americans by the US Gov't, and agencies using drones to do so. You also have issues like this: www.geek.com/news/man-spies-on-family-using-flying-drone-transmits-images-to-glasses-1555275/And the legality of the flyovers by drones is being argued out right now. One of the main issues is that agencies are recording information, and sharing it with other agencies- but we don't know what type of information they're recording and sharing. Or who all they are sharing it with. Some of the drones are also carrying thermal cameras, and IR cameras. This is NOT the kind of thing used for a standard flyover. They are, in fact, invading the "reasonable expectation of privacy" set forth in the law. |
|
colonel wolfe
Junior Member
"I haven't done any research "-Steve Yune
Posts: 160
|
Post by colonel wolfe on Dec 11, 2013 5:46:50 GMT
well, once Amazon is dropping of packages with its drones to my sleezy neighborhood... I'll have to have a shotgun to try and get my package back from the hood-rats who will try to rob the poor thing...
|
|
|
|
Post by Sci-Fi on Dec 11, 2013 5:54:16 GMT
Where has there been ILLEGAL spying on Americans by the US Government using drones?
The guy using a glorified remote control helicopter isn't the same thing as "Drones" used by the US government. There is something to be said about the definition being a bit open ended. Sort of like "Aircraft" can be exceptionally broad.
As pointed out in the article, there is ruling and law by the Supreme court that say that technically this is not trespassing. What that guy was doing probably can be charged under peeping tom laws, or even wiretapping (I know it's not a wire or a tap but the law is broader there. In some places filming people with out their permission falls under it.) It could be invasion of privacy or stalking, but a drone in the air isn't 'trespassing'. (Personally I'd have opened the window and broke the toy. Or if I saw the guy as they clearly did, go down and wait for him to try and recover said toy and break it then. It's not like he's going to land the thing in a moving car while making his escape. He's going to land it where he can pick it up.)
Nor are government drones going to be buzzing around peeking in windows like that. lol. Not legally anyway. If you see one you call the cops and the operator gets charged.
As for the legality of flyovers, yes they are being argued, but as cited, the Supreme court has already ruled on this in general. At this point in time they're legal. Using thermal camera's and IR cameras are legal. Police choppers use them all the time. Watch an episode of Cops. You can seldom get through an entire episode with out some film from the chopper cops, showing people running through bushes in Thermal or IR. It's not only common, but it's so common that you can watch chases and stuff using them on TV.
Cops also use thermal cameras from choppers to find grow houses in the city for drugs.
I'm not one to 'champion all things drone' or even cops, but the stuff you're posting up there is already done by police in planes and choppers all the time, and is legal in the courts. The only difference in this, would be one has a pilot in the aircraft, the other has a pilot in a flight control center.
This 'fear' and 'anger' is nothing more than fear mongering by people making something out of nothing. If it's ok for cops to do in 2million dollar choppers, with people sitting in the seat, what's the difference between a cop with a few screens doing it with a joy stick safe from harm using a $5,000 drone?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sci-Fi on Dec 11, 2013 6:00:39 GMT
well, once Amazon is dropping of packages with its drones to my sleezy neighborhood... I'll have to have a shotgun to try and get my package back from the hood-rats who will try to rob the poor thing... I'm quick to get my packages off the porch -now-, least they fly away(Metaphorically). Thing is, it's not like people are going to sit on roofs with binoculars looking for drones to chase around and rob. They're going to have a weight limit and very likely a price limit on what they put in those boxes. For just that sort of reason. Probably something like $50 price limit and under 10 lbs. People are worried about it but pause and think. Wouldn't it be infinitely easier to follow around the HUGE BROWN UPS truck, and just walk up onto porches to steal boxes (Some of them quite large.) Than to chase around little drones with little boxes? The UPS truck is huge, stands out, can be followed on land, as they have to stay to roads (Drone's can fly over neighborhoods etc). If there was going to be a pandemic of people stealing packages, wouldn't it be hugely more easy to just do it now? I had a 54 inch long hand and a half sword delivered today. I got up early just to make sure I was there to instantly take it inside. Putting the door mat on a box four and a half feet tall by a foot and a half wide, just doesn't cut it. lol |
|
colonel wolfe
Junior Member
"I haven't done any research "-Steve Yune
Posts: 160
|
Post by colonel wolfe on Dec 11, 2013 6:32:08 GMT
Amazon's private shipping compnay has lost 4 packages at my apartment... I live in a builgind with about 23 other apartments.. and a large note saying don't leave anything here, drop it off at the leasing office.. "LaserShip" as they are called leaves everything at my door, after the 4th package got reshipped, they finally started leaving it in the right spot... and actually, its not uncommon for someone to drive around after UPs and steal stuff  when I worked with Brown, we had it happen on a drivers route for a few weeks until the Sheriff dept. caught the guy red handed in a pick-up with about 15 packages in the bed of his truck... |
|
colonel wolfe
Junior Member
"I haven't done any research "-Steve Yune
Posts: 160
|
Post by colonel wolfe on Dec 11, 2013 6:37:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Sci-Fi on Dec 11, 2013 6:48:56 GMT
Amazon's private shipping compnay has lost 4 packages at my apartment... I live in a builgind with about 23 other apartments.. and a large note saying don't leave anything here, drop it off at the leasing office.. "LaserShip" as they are called leaves everything at my door, after the 4th package got reshipped, they finally started leaving it in the right spot... and actually, its not uncommon for someone to drive around after UPs and steal stuff when I worked with Brown, we had it happen on a drivers route for a few weeks until the Sheriff dept. caught the guy red handed in a pick-up with about 15 packages in the bed of his truck... Amazon here uses UPS, but if you complain they'll use FedEx. You may want to give them a call they can mark your account for you. As for people following the UPS truck. That's my point. It's a lot easier than trying to track a small flier. Even then it doesn't happen every day and as you've pointed out, when it starts happening it's not that hard to catch the guy. |
|
|
|
Post by Sci-Fi on Dec 11, 2013 6:53:52 GMT
That ruling was from 2001. Interesting as it's based souly on the tech not being commonly available to the public. I get catalogs about 3 times a month selling it these days. I wonder if the ruling would still hold if contested over a decade later with the advances in tech available to the public. More over, there's plenty of remote control fliers these days that can be bought by the public. I'd define them as that. Remote control vehicles, but the definition of drone is fluid. The thing is, if the government is using the drones 'Correctly', say the EPA actually monitoring weather and soil erosion and what not, they're not gathering informaion illegally. So it'd be moot. The OP here has a buncha rednecks with shot guns trying to shoot down hypothetical US governmental aircraft. |
|
colonel wolfe
Junior Member
"I haven't done any research "-Steve Yune
Posts: 160
|
Post by colonel wolfe on Dec 11, 2013 16:18:06 GMT
Amazon's private shipping compnay has lost 4 packages at my apartment... I live in a builgind with about 23 other apartments.. and a large note saying don't leave anything here, drop it off at the leasing office.. "LaserShip" as they are called leaves everything at my door, after the 4th package got reshipped, they finally started leaving it in the right spot... and actually, its not uncommon for someone to drive around after UPs and steal stuff when I worked with Brown, we had it happen on a drivers route for a few weeks until the Sheriff dept. caught the guy red handed in a pick-up with about 15 packages in the bed of his truck... Amazon here uses UPS, but if you complain they'll use FedEx. You may want to give them a call they can mark your account for you. As for people following the UPS truck. That's my point. It's a lot easier than trying to track a small flier. Even then it doesn't happen every day and as you've pointed out, when it starts happening it's not that hard to catch the guy. I've tried, the CS person said that they can't affect who delivers the packages... weird thing about Laser-ship is they don't have company vehicles afaik... I caught the guy on day, and he was in a Datsun pickup... as far as stealing from drones.. I'm just worried about the hoodrats who have stolen my books from laser-ship, stealing from the drone... I'll live about 20 minutes by car from the new warehouse they are opening in tampa... i just can hope the air-port being 2 miles away might limit their use of delivery drones |
|
colonel wolfe
Junior Member
"I haven't done any research "-Steve Yune
Posts: 160
|
Post by colonel wolfe on Dec 11, 2013 16:32:09 GMT
That ruling was from 2001. Interesting as it's based souly on the tech not being commonly available to the public. I get catalogs about 3 times a month selling it these days. I wonder if the ruling would still hold if contested over a decade later with the advances in tech available to the public. More over, there's plenty of remote control fliers these days that can be bought by the public. I'd define them as that. Remote control vehicles, but the definition of drone is fluid. The thing is, if the government is using the drones 'Correctly', say the EPA actually monitoring weather and soil erosion and what not, they're not gathering informaion illegally. So it'd be moot. The OP here has a buncha rednecks with shot guns trying to shoot down hypothetical US governmental aircraft. as shown in the above case as well as Katz v. USA (1967), the government can and will do as it pleases with new technology until a time someone challenges it based on its violation of our rights. at that time the SCOTUS will take the case and finally define the legal use of said tech. Since the Kyllo case some groups suspecting police of using infrared technology in violation of this ruling has set up reverse stings, making fake-grow houses and waiting on the police to show up with Swat, at what point the department is sent documents for a civil suit. These kinds of activities are necessary to ensure that police are working within the confines of the Law and violating civil rights to fight crime. |
|
