Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > News & Current Events
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

News & Current Events Discuss Judge Rules In Favor of Man Who Shot Down Drone at the General Forum; Originally Posted by foundit66 Of course it's not like an unwanted car in your driveway. Of course there is a ...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 11-11-2015, 10:25 AM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,135
Thanks: 11,173
Thanked 7,281 Times in 4,886 Posts
Default Re: Judge Rules In Favor of Man Who Shot Down Drone

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Of course it's not like an unwanted car in your driveway. Of course there is a privacy issue here.

While I disagree that it's like a camera being shoved through a window, if somebody were to stick a camera through your window do you have a right to break that camera?

um
Absoltutly s

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
People would also get the message with lawsuits and appropriate police action.
The drone operator WAS in the wrong.
agreed

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
But the response action of the property owner was also wrong.
no. He was right.

the owner has a right to protect his privacy. But granted, in most case by using the least amount of force if possible.
But without any other less destructive options available, the blasting it out of the sky was RIGHT.

people are not obligated to protect their rights by waiting for police to and courts to hopefully "get them NEXT TIME"
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mr wonder For This Useful Post:
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 11-11-2015, 10:44 AM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,135
Thanks: 11,173
Thanked 7,281 Times in 4,886 Posts
Default Re: Judge Rules In Favor of Man Who Shot Down Drone

local news video on story

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=hSjIAdImW_4
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 11-11-2015, 11:42 AM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,909
Thanks: 656
Thanked 6,875 Times in 4,931 Posts
Default Re: Judge Rules In Favor of Man Who Shot Down Drone

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
While I disagree that it's like a camera being shoved through a window, if somebody were to stick a camera through your window do you have a right to break that camera?
It's not one of those special cameras, eh? You know, the ones rigged to shoot a bullet, or anything nefarious and deadly, eh? I don't believe you or anybody else who possesses common sense have the balls to attempt that little puppet show. Am I wrong?

Break that camera, my ass! I will more likely have hamburger and camera pieces to clean up after the police have done their investigation of the break-in.

Last edited by Manitou; 11-11-2015 at 11:47 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 11-11-2015, 12:20 PM
FrancSevin's Avatar
Runs with scissors
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: St Louis MO
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,809
Thanks: 10,198
Thanked 13,778 Times in 7,519 Posts
Default Re: Judge Rules In Favor of Man Who Shot Down Drone

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post

And there are other cases that went the other way.
This is only the first round. And the comments quoted by the judge provide NO legal reasoning...



You're missing the point.
Let me boil this down for you.
Just because something exists on your property does not give you the right to shoot it in most places.

The drone owner being in the wrong does not automatically mean that the home owner is justified in shooting somebody else's property.
No, I am disputing yours.

So far, I have seen nothing definitive on your presumption, he could not shoot a gun on his property. Your argument, which will likely press for the next ten pages, stands on that.

Even if that were so, the Judge has ruled the shooting "justified." I'm sure local laws about discharge of a firearm were not ignored in her decision. So your so called "point" is irrelevant.

As for property rights. if my neighbor's trees invade my airspace, I will damage his "property" with a chainsaw. Absolutely legal. So your only objection would have to be limited to use of a gun. Again, the Judge did not find that objectionable.


As for responsibility of damage, let us look at the illegally parked car.
On this I have personal experience. High school kid parked his car in front of my driveway. Now, I had enough room to clear it but when I asked him to move it about a foot forward, he gave me the finger.

So I had it towed away.

Next day his dad came by complaining the car was damaged by the towing company. He wanted restitution. According to the judge, I could have done anything reasonable to remove the car from my property including pushing it off with a dozer.

Once the Drone entered the man's airspace, on his property, the owner of the Drone relinquishes any right to restitution whatever happens to his property. It would be no different than running my car over a neighbor's bicycle in my driveway. I have no legal obligation to care for abandoned possessions on my property. So again, it comes back to use of a firearm.
__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE

Last edited by FrancSevin; 11-11-2015 at 12:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to FrancSevin For This Useful Post:
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 11-11-2015, 02:31 PM
CindyB's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,525
Thanks: 9,932
Thanked 5,771 Times in 3,568 Posts
Default Re: Judge Rules In Favor of Man Who Shot Down Drone

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post

And there are other cases that went the other way.
This is only the first round. And the comments quoted by the judge provide NO legal reasoning...



You're missing the point.
Let me boil this down for you.
Just because something exists on your property does not give you the right to shoot it in most places.

The drone owner being in the wrong does not automatically mean that the home owner is justified in shooting somebody else's property.

Did those "other cases" involved drones invading private citizen's property?
__________________
The Democrats are not after the truth, they are after the President.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CindyB For This Useful Post:
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 11-11-2015, 08:36 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,620
Thanks: 10,112
Thanked 15,311 Times in 9,282 Posts
Post Re: Judge Rules In Favor of Man Who Shot Down Drone

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wonder View Post
the owner has a right to protect his privacy.
With a gun?
By SHOOTING a gun...
You're claiming he has a right to protect his privacy with a gun...



Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wonder View Post
But granted, in most case by using the least amount of force if possible.
But without any other less destructive options available, the blasting it out of the sky was RIGHT.

You seem to think anything that is necessary to achieve the end goal is justified.
It isn't.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wonder View Post
people are not obligated to protect their rights by waiting for police to and courts to hopefully "get them NEXT TIME"
Actually, in many cases that's exactly what they're obligated to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin
No, I am disputing yours.
So far, I have seen nothing definitive on your presumption, he could not shoot a gun on his property. Your argument, which will likely press for the next ten pages, stands on that.
This isn't just about shooting a gun.
This is about shooting a gun to damage somebody else's property.
Ergo the example I raised earlier regarding somebody else's car on your property. Does that mean you just get to shoot it?



Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin
Even if that were so, the Judge has ruled the shooting "justified." I'm sure local laws about discharge of a firearm were not ignored in her decision. So your so called "point" is irrelevant.
And an appeal can easily wind this up with another judge ruling otherwise...


Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin
As for property rights. if my neighbor's trees invade my airspace, I will damage his "property" with a chainsaw. Absolutely legal. So your only objection would have to be limited to use of a gun. Again, the Judge did not find that objectionable.
A poor example as there is no real way to "return" that tree part back to the other property owner.
The law has essentially made that tree part yours. You're cutting something that you own.
The drone is NOT yours just because it's hovering above your property.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin
As for responsibility of damage, let us look at the illegally parked car.
On this I have personal experience. High school kid parked his car in front of my driveway. Now, I had enough room to clear it but when I asked him to move it about a foot forward, he gave me the finger.
So I had it towed away.
Next day his dad came by complaining the car was damaged by the towing company. He wanted restitution. According to the judge, I could have done anything reasonable to remove the car from my property including pushing it off with a dozer.
The intelligent attempt would have been to sue the tow truck company. Not you.
Is the tow company liable for damage to my car?

As for what you claim the judge's statement was,
A simple google search reveals legislation contradicting your claim. Copying Georgia law.
Only towing and storage firms issued permits or licenses by the local governing authority of the jurisdiction in which they operate or by the commission, and having a secure impoundment facility, shall be permitted to remove trespassing property and trespassing personal property at the request of the owner or authorized agent of the private property.
§ 44-1-13 - Removal of improperly parked cars or trespassing personal property; concurrent jurisdiction; procedure; automatic surveillance prohibited; penalty :: 2010 Georgia Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia


And here's Missouri.
The owner of real property or lessee in lawful possession of the real property or the property or security manager of the real property may authorize a towing company to remove abandoned property or property parked in a restricted or assigned area without authorization by a law enforcement officer only when the owner, lessee or property or security manager of the real property is present. A property or security manager must be a full-time employee of a business entity. An authorization to tow pursuant to this subsection may be made only under any of the following circumstances:
http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/st...400001571.html
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 11-11-2015, 09:49 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,135
Thanks: 11,173
Thanked 7,281 Times in 4,886 Posts
Default Re: Judge Rules In Favor of Man Who Shot Down Drone

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
With a gun?
By SHOOTING a gun...
You're claiming he has a right to protect his privacy with a gun...
If he had used a bow and arrow would you feel better?
thrown a hammer?
Thrown a knife?
Used a sling shot?

butterfly net was too short. water hose too.
gun was a perfect tool, until lasers and EMP weapons are available.

the tool is not an issue.
I'm not sure why you think there a law specifically barring the use of certain legally owned tools to project your rights when it's the only tool that can effectively do the job?

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post

You seem to think anything that is necessary to achieve the end goal is justified.
It isn't.
You seem to think a gun is to extreme a tool for this goal.
it isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Actually, in many cases that's exactly what they're obligated to do.
Not in this case.
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 11-11-2015, 09:58 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,620
Thanks: 10,112
Thanked 15,311 Times in 9,282 Posts
Post Re: Judge Rules In Favor of Man Who Shot Down Drone

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wonder View Post
If he had used a bow and arrow would you feel better?
thrown a hammer?
Thrown a knife?
Used a sling shot?
butterfly net was too short. water hose too.
gun was a perfect tool, until lasers and EMP weapons are available.
the tool is not an issue.
I'm not sure why you think there a law specifically barring the use of certain legally owned tools to project your rights when it's the only tool that can effectively do the job?
You're lost in your own strawman.
My point hinges around harming somebody else's property.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wonder View Post
You seem to think a gun is to extreme a tool for this goal.
it isn't.
Any tool that damages the other person's property when there is no risk to anybody in the situation is problematic.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wonder View Post
Not in this case.
Can you justify this claim by actually arguing the point?
Suppose somebody parks on your property when you don't want them to.
Are you justified in shooting the car?


You guys are lost in hating the drone and fearing loss of privacy that you're overreacting to the situation.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 11-11-2015, 10:26 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,135
Thanks: 11,173
Thanked 7,281 Times in 4,886 Posts
Default Re: Judge Rules In Favor of Man Who Shot Down Drone

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
You're lost in your own strawman.
My point hinges around harming somebody else's property.
you can't seem to remember what you said from one post to the next.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66's previous post
With a gun?
By SHOOTING a gun...
You're claiming he has a right to protect his privacy with a gun...
your point here is "With a gun?" "SHOOTING a gun""...with a gun.."
not just "harming property" but harming pro try "WITH A GUN" is what YOU said.
no strawmen here -as usual-- you're just attempting to dodge the point.



Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66
You guys are lost in hating the drone and fearing loss of privacy that you're overreacting to the situation.
there was no harm to others, just the drone.
your overreacting to the use of guns.
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 11-11-2015, 10:31 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,135
Thanks: 11,173
Thanked 7,281 Times in 4,886 Posts
Default Re: Judge Rules In Favor of Man Who Shot Down Drone

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Any tool that damages the other person's property when there is no risk to anybody in the situation is problematic.
your assuming that the drone hovering over the property with a camera on your kids is NO RISK.
Well u-known you're right. it's not a risk. the offense/crime against privacy is not at risk, it's ALREADY occurred.
And it's time to take action to remedy the offense.
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
down, drone, favor, judge, man, rules, shot, who

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0