Jump to content

#WarningQuadcoptes


G+_Jeff Brand
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, resorting to a shotgun for something that posed no threat to the well being of him or his home is ridiculous. But I fear that this ruling will be used as president to show that we don't own any airspace above our properties, which I think is dangerous, although probably true. It may also be used where someone had a legitimate reason knock a quad out of the sky in order to protect their land or well being. Say it was spying on a pool party or preparing to drop a rock on your expensive car.

 

I know, I'm being paranoid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The quad owner presented GPS data that showed it was over his own property, not the shooter's, so I think it's showing quite the opposite.

 

To your point, the court said it didn't really matter.. Depending on the state's laws about use of firearms on private property, it may require a perceived threat and an act of self defense. Obviously the guy (and his cousin) didn't meet that standard.

 

There's a balance between the property rights of both parties and the judge obviously felt that the act was a little hasty.

 

My original point was that if he thinks it's "beyond repair" I'd be happy to take it off his hands and give it a shot. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't tell much from the photo, but  it looks like he's down a frame (assuming that the bottom plate was punctured, the retractable landing gear, a motor,  battery pack and MAYBE an ESC. 

 

The FC still obviously works because he was able to get the GPS data off.

 

So... $700 might actually be right if you include the amount of hours he put into assembly. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...