Drones
- Thread starter brian4d
- Start date
PT,ptschram said:
don't take stuff to extreme. Most people live in densely populated areas, and only few have a luxury of duck hunting in their backyards.
I live in the very narrow path for the general aviation to escape from Montgomery Field, sneaking between approach/departure from SAN, North Island NAS, and fun box of Miramar MCAS. Class G airspace begins at 1200ft MSL (about 800ft above my house), and gen av traffic tends to cling to the lower bound. Helicopters are not as bad as in LA, but there are plenty still, and San Diego glider port is about a mile from my house.
ptschram
Well-known member
p m said:
If one considers how much gunfire there is in most urban areas with 9 m/m, a shotgun poses a far lower risk. Dispersed shot, quick loss of velocity and energy.
While i have little air traffic around my home, each spring and fall, there are numerous fixed wing aircraft flying at treetop level-corp dusting scares me spitless.
Then in the late fall, we have black choppers flying at tree-top level bristling with heavily armed State Policemen...
I love living where I can shoot in my backyard!
Peter and I live in a City. (According to the late President Nixon, the finest in the nation) Firing a gun at ALL is illegal, even if it's a shotgun loaded with rubber, on your own property, into a barrel, filled with water, in your garage. I don't think trap-shooting a drone over your yard counts as self-defense.
Besides, a gun is overkill - slingshot, paintball-gun, water-balloon, hose, super-soaker, a small rock, a baseball, a boomerang, or even a small bit of string will bring down a multi-rotor copter. Too bad if you touch it or interfere with it at all you'll likely be cited with vandalizing police property and arrested for resisting arrest (dunno how that one works, but it happens all the time).
Peter, as for your peeping-neighbor, were it me, I'd make sure never to go into the hot tub with clothes on ever again. He wants a peep-show? Haha, give him one that'll scar him for life!
Besides, a gun is overkill - slingshot, paintball-gun, water-balloon, hose, super-soaker, a small rock, a baseball, a boomerang, or even a small bit of string will bring down a multi-rotor copter. Too bad if you touch it or interfere with it at all you'll likely be cited with vandalizing police property and arrested for resisting arrest (dunno how that one works, but it happens all the time).
Peter, as for your peeping-neighbor, were it me, I'd make sure never to go into the hot tub with clothes on ever again. He wants a peep-show? Haha, give him one that'll scar him for life!
knewsom said:
Yup:
Bolas:
http://www.thepoisonforest.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Bolas.jpg
Weighted Net:
http://www.remoteasiaphoto.com/images/large/_DSC3235.jpg
Rope Dart:
http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee177/mongochow/IMG_1511.jpg
Meteor Hammer:
http://www.donhyunkungfu.com/picture/korea%20137.jpg?pictureId=10380527&asGalleryImage=true
Kusari-Fundo:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v19/dokko/ebay/SDC12507.jpg
As you can see, they are all very similar; the net being the only weapon more complicated than a single tether and weights. They take a lot of practice to operate, but they would drop one of those quad rotors like a bad habit. Some of them aren't actually meant to be released, but they will release straight as an arrow if you get it right (or wrong).
One can construct basic versions of all with nothing more than a rope and some knots.
These are also great ways to spend a few months kicking your own ass.
Cheers,
Kennith
knewsom said:
One of America's most ridiculous might be more accurate. You're not in favor of defending yourself or spies, but you blatantly promote indecent exposure? If you are openly visible to your neighbors and naked, it's not peeping.
Last edited:
ptschram said:
In Indiana even if you don't own the minerals you own the pore space in the the ground.
Ridiculous?bri said:
I find San Diego one of the least-restrictive cities in the country. And unique in its political balance - it is probably the most politically-neutral large city in the nation.
Don't take shit out of context - nobody is "openly visible to my neighbors" in my backyard - unless the neighbors climb the fence. That little fucker did it again last Saturday.
The balcony has neither window nor door leading to it.bri said:
California is a Castle Law/Stand Your Ground Law state, although not to Texas or Florida standards (the provision being imminent physical threat to one's self or house inhabitants).
Castle law, however, does not explicitly cover firearms' use; here's a quote from San Diego municipal code $53.10:
"(c) Prohibition. No person shall fire any firearm or explode any explosive within The City of San Diego.
(d) Exceptions. This section does not apply to firearms fired under the authority of the United States or the State of California, nor to shooting galleries or target ranges; nor where a permit has been issued or a firing area designated by the City Council pursuant to Subsections (e) and (f) hereof. "
I cannot say if it were legal or illegal for me to shoot an armed intruder. Going back to the OP, it would definitely be illegal to shoot an aircraft, however small or intrusive it might be. There is plenty of methods either outright legal, or novel enough so nobody questionned their legality yet.
That's like saying you shot the cop car that pulled in your driveway... saying you're going to shoot a drone is not any different that shooting a police car or police helicopter.
Still, the point of legal use of the drones is not being discussed. How is a police drone not liable to be used within the confines of the law like a helicopter or even foot patrol? Is there something special about them that all of a sudden the police can now legally use IR cameras and other sensor arrays and invade your privacy? Are they now allowed to breach FAA flight restrictions for airspace?
There may be special use permits which allow them into areas, but there's still the constitution and big brother still gets to abide by that or face the wrath of the legal system/public. Albeit a difficult process typically to 'prove' breach of suspects rights, it does happen and cases are thrown out. This is where tighter guidelines for LEO's doing their jobs comes in... Miranda anybody?
You can't say with the tin foil hat off that you seriously think the LEO's have nothing better to do than to fly around people's backyards and spy on them skinny dipping in their hot tubs.
Still, the point of legal use of the drones is not being discussed. How is a police drone not liable to be used within the confines of the law like a helicopter or even foot patrol? Is there something special about them that all of a sudden the police can now legally use IR cameras and other sensor arrays and invade your privacy? Are they now allowed to breach FAA flight restrictions for airspace?
There may be special use permits which allow them into areas, but there's still the constitution and big brother still gets to abide by that or face the wrath of the legal system/public. Albeit a difficult process typically to 'prove' breach of suspects rights, it does happen and cases are thrown out. This is where tighter guidelines for LEO's doing their jobs comes in... Miranda anybody?
You can't say with the tin foil hat off that you seriously think the LEO's have nothing better to do than to fly around people's backyards and spy on them skinny dipping in their hot tubs.
Let me bring back the original post:AMCM Disco said:
brian4d said:
Danger-wise:
I'd say if I saw one getting in close proximity to a person on my property, I'd shoot it with whatever I have at hand. These blades are pretty damn sharp.bri said:
Last edited:
Yes. My point exactly. As you would use your car to ram a police car that is careening towards a crowd of poeple or other circumstances to protect those in need of protecting.
The jist of arguments about drones and the "just shoot them" response is that they're being used purposfully to spy on you. There's many steps in the process that are being broken (read: illegal) with processing surveillance on a subject before you get to a spy drone hovering a few feet above your head.
The jist of arguments about drones and the "just shoot them" response is that they're being used purposfully to spy on you. There's many steps in the process that are being broken (read: illegal) with processing surveillance on a subject before you get to a spy drone hovering a few feet above your head.
But the essence is that aircraft, piloted in person or remotely, are used to "spy on you."
The range of the aircraft is from little toy store things to police and news helicopters and fixed-wing.
The range of information the users are getting is from meaningless low-resolution video to decent-quality shots of people behaving under assumption of privacy, and on to what localities deem illegal construction or storing vehicles on one's property (or growing pot in a warehouse).
The range of legality is from irrelevant to completely illegal - I am yet to hear of a warrant for aerial surveillance.
The range of response... That, I think, was the question.
The range of the aircraft is from little toy store things to police and news helicopters and fixed-wing.
The range of information the users are getting is from meaningless low-resolution video to decent-quality shots of people behaving under assumption of privacy, and on to what localities deem illegal construction or storing vehicles on one's property (or growing pot in a warehouse).
The range of legality is from irrelevant to completely illegal - I am yet to hear of a warrant for aerial surveillance.
The range of response... That, I think, was the question.
ptschram
Well-known member
toadermcgee said:
Every piece of property I've bought has stated I only owned "Plow depth".
IC cite please.
ptschram said:
I asked our lawyer for the IC. He tells me it was set case law. I know we have to deal with the surface owner on leases where we have disposal operation but not enhanced recovery. As a company rule we always work with the surface owner as they can make your life hell if they aint happy.
This might help you get the rights to your minerals.
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title32/ar23/ch10.html
p m said:
Its just not enough information to determine what you should do.
Someone would have to be in imminent danger and you'd need a clear shot.
The drone would need to also be in a position where you know you will kill it and it'd won't danger someone else.
If it's close you could nick a blade and if they are deadly you could just make the situation worse with an uncontrollable drone winged on your property.
Just like anytime you pull a gun a lot of stuff will play and you'll end up having to make a judgement call.
If its around long enought to go get your shotgun, maybe the person in danger could just leave. Likely I am not going to take a risk to make the situation worse by pulling a gun or making some otherwise riskful move.
An advanced game of pinata does sound like fun though, assuming you also have time to grab a helmet.