|
joether -> RE: Kentucky Drone Shooter... and the verdict is... (10/28/2015 7:13:18 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: kdsub
If the source I use...DJI... is correct in the recorded and recovered data from the Phantom 3 quad copter shot down... the altitude was 193 feet. The Phantom three has a 94 mm landscape F2 lens that at that altitude will not capture enough detail to easily even see a person let alone tell what they are wearing.
Below is an image I captured at that approximate height with an identical aircraft ... do you really think this device can be used for spying on a sunbathing little girl?
You want a rational, intelligent, an educated answer? Or the conservative/paranoid answer?
Some dude flying his amateur drone wildly has enough problems controlling the craft to take anything resembling an accurate picture. Even the $1,500 units do take some practice even with the on board systems that handle much of the work.
I'm surprised the judge made this ruling. Since isn't it up to the guy whom shot down the drone to prove the pilot of the drone was taking pictures (thereby creating justification to use a firearm)? Or is Kentucky not part of the United States of America anymore? Frankly if the guy firing the gun is afraid of a tiny drone, that dude has some SERIOUS mental and emotional problems. Sooner or later, he and his gun be in trouble with the law. The prosecution will be more than happy to bring this case up!
So it begs the question: Should drone operators arm their drones? That way if someone attacks, the drone can....STAND ITS GROUND....and fire back? Particularly if its operating on its own and no human supervision (i.e. following a pre-set pattern unless obstacles decide otherwise). All this judge did was create problems for the future rather than solving them.
A drone 'stand its ground ?' Surely you jest. How could that concept possibly apply when in law, the homeowner 'owns' the airspace above his home.
Think about it....
What can computers accomplish in 2015 that they could never do just ten years ago? That's a huge list. How many more tasks will they be able to accomplish in another 10 years? Could a drone in ten years identify not only that its being attacked, but engaged the hostile target? Even use a weapon to defend itself from said hostile target?
What happens when that drone, armed, with better programming to operate on its own (more or less) for hours at a time gets attacked? Does it have a right, as an extension of its owner, to 'stand its ground'? Since swords and clubs are merely an extension of one's arm, and are considered an weapon like a firearm under the 2nd; therefore the drone's receiver is the 'extension' between the drone itself and the system controlling it (much like a wrist would hold a club).
The easiest way to solve that is to outlaw drones with firearms or weapon systems except by special permit.
The problem that exists is the FAA has not made any real rules on the distance from the ground and up, to were drones can and can not fly. That information is coming out next month (in theory). Therefore, this guy with his gun had no authority to challenge the drone with hostile force. An intelligent, sane, and responsible gun owner would have gone over to the neighbor an kindly asked not to have the drone fly over the house. I think we can deduce the firearm owner is not intelligent, sane, or responsible with a firearm. He would lose in civil court for damages to the drone craft.
|
|
|
|
