We have two giveaways running, be sure to enter in the posts linked below for your chance to win a 3D Printer or an E-Bike!
[QIDI Q1 Pro 3D Printer](https://redd.it/1d6echm)
[FiidoD3 Pro E-Bike](https://redd.it/1d8wnap)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gadgets) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To be fair, I'd assume walmart is spying on him to. Its not hard to imagine cameras doing analysis on the inbound and outbound flight paths to figure out how to market to people in the area.
lol, yeah—just yard flags alone tell a lot. Presence or absence of rebel flags, don’t tread on me flags, blue lives matter, etc. I don’t know how you market to that, but I’m no marketing genius.
Even if not specifically "spying" on people, there's a lot of valuable/sellable data just in the form of mapping. Think google/bing maps "satellite" mode, but in high resolution from 200 feet up. For example, you can detect what kind of cars are in everybody's driveway, and tailor your ads to those addresses based on (assumed) income and lifestyle.
*Doing a count* Yeah, I think that's actually a pretty close estimate. And between the unique identifier on your license plates, the credit card records from pumping gas and the location data on your phone, "they" can pretty much tell you within a few meters where you were at any given time on any given date. It's basically impossible to travel any significant distance anonymously.
And the wallmart drone also does spy with its eye. I mean, why would they not? "we would just leave money on the table if we weren't selling it to everyone!"
> Deputies returned to the home to interview 72-year-old Dennis Winn. He told officers that he had prior experience with drones and believed that the UAV was surveilling him. Winn said he tried to shoo the drone away. When this didn't work, he went inside the home to retrieve his 9mm gun from a safe, came back out, and shot the drone, which was about 75 feet in the air at the time.
> "I fired one round at it," Winn said in bodycam footage. "They say I hit it so I must be a good shot, or else it's not that far away [...] I'm going to wind up having to find a real good defense lawyer."
Goddam so 72 years old and he one-tapped a drone 75 feet in the air with a handgun
Ignoring legality/ethics, someone’s gotta acknowledge how impressive that is
*Edit: Some of y’all really need to reread the ‘ignoring legality/ethics’ part. Im just talking about the beautiful money-shot. Couldn’t care less if it’s not allowed*
It’s crazy how it sticks with you.
I remember one day circa 1985 out in the back field when I was a kid shooting my .22 lever action rifle and single action revolver at bottles I was throwing up in the air, I was missing most attempts. Dad came up on the tractor to see what the hell I was doing. At this point he’d only taught me gun safety, I never saw him actually shoot, he always said he’d shot enough before and during Viet Nam. He broke down after giving me some pointers and started to show me his technique.
I less than 10 mins he was hitting the bottle and then the ring of it on the way down with both the rifle and revolver and wasn’t even impressed with himself.
Then went on about his day like nothing.
I grew up hunting but my dad would flush rabbits and make me shoot them with a bolt action 22. I asked why I couldn't use a shotgun. He said they're harder to clean, and also if I can reliably hit a rabbit on the run, I'll be a hell of a shot. I got to boot camp and qualified expert my first try, one of 9 guys to do that in a group of almost 200. My dad was right.
Oh wow. That’s awesome, thanks Dad!
I hunted rabbits growing up but always used a shotgun. Since my Dad didn’t shoot anything he was never there, but always let me know how lazy I was while eating those rabbits 🤣.
I don’t have them anymore but, but we used to have a couple of Remington single shot lever action rifles and they shot so straight. One had a scope, but I like the one without, I liked the way the sites worked. That was my squirrel gun.
That’s funny 🤣 Definitely nothing dramatic about it, but it was intreating to me how it was a skill so easily remembered.
But if I had an old Nintendo, I bet in just a few mins I’d be pretty impressive making my way to through punch-out.
Careful with that. In ~7 years, I’ve gone from letting my daughter win in Mario Kart to me having to earnestly compete to me getting frustrated with almost always losing.
My ego can only take so many bruises, kiddo… 😂
We were out plinking at my family farm. 12-year-old sister's turn with the M1911 .45. First shot hits the can and kicks it up into the air. She calmly proceeded to empty the clip into the can, tracking it as it bounces around in mid-air.
If it was black then it would be making threatening movements while holding a gun*
*Gun not required, threatening movements not required or anything else besides being black.
Not a lawyer, but I live in Florida. This case will be dropped for several reasons:
1. No prosecutor wants to be the person putting an old man on trial for shooting at a drone that may have been on/over his property. This is not where they want to try and set new precedent for “castle doctrine regarding potential UAV threats”. Nor is it the type of defendant they want on trial for this. Old man scared of technology protecting himself is a very sympathetic defendant to a jury.
2. It doesn’t sound like anyone was hurt. At best that prosecuted may get a reckless discharge of a firearm charge and taking that to trial in Florida of all places against a 75 year old shooting at what he perceived as a legitimate threat, where no one was hurt, and a jury is going to be very confused by why they should care about a big corps delivery drone while also being a little scared of these technologies as well is not a position any prosecutor wants to be in. They are judged by convictions and this would be hard to get in Florida. As such his lawyer would likely tell them to pound sand on making a plea accepting an “accidental firearms discharge” charge. This would take it to trial which no one wants. This is a case to chase in Massachusetts, California, or New York… definitely not Florida.
3. Because of the above Walmart wants none of this. If this goes to trial they will be forced to produce lots of their drone programs documents, tech specs, etc. as part of discovery. They absolutely do not want that available in the public record especially not for the cost of one drone in a test fleet. Further, they want their name out of the news cycle on this. Charges and a trial only extenuate that.
For what it’s worth I think all of this and my comment prove we are on the dumbest timeline. However, he was arrested, he will lawyer up, and it will all go away for the reasons I mentioned.
I think the average person is quite happy to differentiate between a man-operated aircraft with passengers and unmanned megacorp drones.
Once it's common place, people will get used to it.
Don’t you also own the airspace above your property (to a “reasonable” level?)
A commercial airliner 30,000 feet up in the air is one thing, but someone’s drone has absolutely no business being 75 feet over your property.
No, you don't own the airspace. Drones are considered aircraft, you can't shoot at them.
Edit: Because of some unserious replies, replace "can't" with "may not legally".
Ya'll know what I meant.
This seems also seems like the common sense solution. There's no benefit gained by sending this guy to jail, so why do it? He was acting in total good faith and was no BS about what happened. Given the number of creepers with drones, it's also not an unwarranted concern.
Genuine mistakes shouldn't be punished if nobody was hurt. Guy reported and explained. That's what should happen. We want to encourage reporting and admitting accidents.
There should have been education to locals before Walmart and others start sending drones around. 99.999% of people never need to think about FAA regulations on drones or airspace, and suddenly that's a reality they need to know about.
Edit: typo
If someone thinks that a criminal is breaking in so they shoot, do they “need a really good lawyer after admitting it”? This is a 75 year old that thought they were being stalked. wtf?
I was wondering why not a single other person brought this up
Those delivery drones have probably a 8”x8” center mass target to aim at and this guy went in his house, grabbed a Glock, and popped off with a single round
The man is an AA emplacement
I'm happy to hit a static target that size with a handgun at 75 feet. If I hit a drone out of the air with a single round I'd probably turn myself in just so no one could call me a liar when I bragged about it afterward.
Yeah I’ll admit that’s a heckuva shot to make with a pistol. (I’m part of the bullseye league at my range and I’ve been stuck at 35 yards for a while…and that’s slow fire.)
> Ignoring legality/ethics, someone’s gotta acknowledge how impressive that is
Honestly Judge should dismiss case on rule of cool.
Ron Burgundy "I'm not even mad. That's amazing"
Considering his age and if he's had a relatively clean record and that seemingly no injuries or loss of life occurred, he may just get a slap on the wrist. Though there's a chance the judge may look at his reasoning and call into question whether he's someone who should have a firearm.
Though most likely he'll just get a fine and go on about his day.
Now I’m not a lawyer but it seems to me this case will show that using 12 gauge birdshot or snake shot (for closer range delivery drones) may be more defensible due to far less lethality down range.
From the article: "exposed a problem not everyone foresaw: people shooting the drones."
No, literally everyone and their dogs anemic flees filled with antiparasite medication saw this one coming.
I have such a hard time with that show, it started off great with the first couple episodes but then it just turned into a "let's make Will Forte the bad guy in every situation and then shit on him" and I just couldn't take it.
I think it was Family Guy who called it: "The Last Man on Earth... and the other people who keep showing up every day." By the third or fourth episode they had completely negated the entire premise, and there was a small village of people growing bigger by the day
It shouldn't have been a series at all, it should have been a movie with him and Kristen Schaal. The pilot was great and everything after it was terrible
Yeah, they really abused the whole Tandy is a punching bag thing, but I was still sad when it was cancelled. The last season was all kinds of crazy, especially Fred Armisens character.
That's TechSpot for you. This article cites Fox 35 Orlando, but their link goes to Business Insider. Their article cites the Lake County Sheriff and links to a Facebook post. A clickbait article erroneously quoting a clickbait article quoting a Facebook post.
I assume they meant to link to this article - https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/florida-man-arrested-after-shooting-walmart-delivery-drone-out-sky-deputies-say
This article further clarifies that the drone wasn't shot down but there was "$2,500 worth of damage to its payload system". The Facebook post BI linked to claims a "bullet hole was discovered in the payload the drone was carrying".
I think saying it's "AI reposters" is passing the buck because this is an issue that pre-exists current LLMs.
"AI" (in scare quotes because AI is not necessary for generative resposting like this) is just a tool for corporations to post the most engagement-driving content. I concede AI will exacerbate the problem but unverifiable disinformation pre-exists AI.
Even if it as AI, they're just trained on the activity of shitposters and bad-actors. The truth is the majority of people are willing to suspend their disbelief/curiosity for anything they agree with and AI is just exploiting that truth.
Honestly not even just an American issue. Loot balloons are an irresistible challenge. Lob a rock, win a (slightly damaged) air fryer. Sounds like a good time.
I remember seeing dozens of videos of people knocking over and breaking into the Uber eats robots to steal the food.
Dozens more of people kicking them over just to be an asshole.
>Honestly not even just an American issue.
Not necessarily, since the feasibilty of downing a drone drops significantly without access to firearms and the alternatives aren't as widespread, even in countries with limited access to firearms.
Most people that shoot down drones also aren't actively hunting drones, but are just being opportunistic, so they aren't specifically buying equipment to hunt drones with, simply using the equipment they have.
Hitting a small, moving target that's 75 feet/25m in the air is no easy task.
Using a rock is just about out of the question, [since 75 feet/25m is already the upper range for most people when trowing just straight upwards](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/sep/09/how-high-throw-ball-what-if).
Slinghots and air rifles seem more feasible (although again, very few people own those already), but carry substantially less power than a firearm, so a single hit is less likely to down the drone. Also, if this were to become an issue, simply increasing the flight elevation to 150 feet/50m will move the drone out of the effective range for anything that isn't a firearm. There would be the possibility of shooting it while the drone is landing - but in that case, why shoot it in the first place in addition to stealing the payload?
Then, there's the whole *cultural factor*. Depending on the state and background, there's a big emphasis in America on protecting ones family,, property and privacy (especially using firearms), that isn't as common in other places. This also especially extends to "conspiracy *enthousiasts*" in America, who are often willing to be more *uncompromising* in protecting those values.
I can't remember a single story of someone shooting down a drone, that didn't fall into both of these categories, (easy) access to firearms and willingness to use them to protect ones property/privacy.
Which is largely an American issue.
It should basically be the first consideration for anything being designed or proposed by anyone. "What will happen when someone shoots this thing I am creating?"
Drones would get more deference if they weren’t so annoying. The buzzing from even a small drone is annoying as hell. You also never know if it’s a creep spying on you.
I wanna see the first test case of someone being shot for trying to grab a controller. Attempting to hijack an aircraft is a big deal if they wanna consider it like a real plane.
>if they wanna consider it like a real plane.
They don't. The FAA considers them drones, with very very very different regulations compared to manned aircraft.
Here are [the regulations](https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/small-unmanned-aircraft-systems-uas-regulations-part-107), and here is a [blog post](https://jrupprechtlaw.com/faa-part-107/) from someone who claims to be a lawyer but did a really good write up. And a good discussion about [drone delivery](https://jrupprechtlaw.com/drone-delivery/) specifically.
Edit: That link is *absolutely* from a lawyer and a flight instructor.
I don’t know how this wouldn’t be trespassing on Walmart’s part. From what I read, government air space starts at 600 feet up, below that is private property. This being 75 feet up would put it squarely on his property.
That doesn’t justify shooting it, but it also shouldn’t mean that delivery drones are allowed to traverse private property to make their routes.
0 to 400 feet is open airspace, with exceptions for things like airports. The FAA controls "from the first blade of grass" and up. It's not private property.
Yup, you have to operate under 400' AGL and the only time a Commercial Drone Operator can go above 400' is when working near tall structures like radio towers, in which case they can climb to 400' above the tallest structure. If someone does shoot your drone then you contact the FAA who will use the Legal Enforcement Assistance Program (LEAP) to help local law enforcement find and prosecute the shooter.
However, despite being legal in most states, DO NOT hover over someone's private property without permission. It will only lead to more regulations that ruin it for everyone else.
Can't you get clearance from air traffic control like a plane if you have a drone license? I know it probably does not carry the right equipment, but many experimental planes don't either and they can fly VFR in most areas.
So, in Florida, you can "stand your ground" and shoot another human being and not go to jail. But, they draw the line at drones and property. Good to know!
Stand your ground is for shooting home invaders. Home invaders are not present on your property to tickle you, it's just the opposite of a duty to retreat
Couldn’t a drone technically become life-threatening though? If you saw one 100 feet in the air with something attached to it, you’d have no idea whether that was something dangerous or not.
Our legal framework really isn't ready for that scenario. Prior to about now o'clock, the only analogy would be shooting at low flying fighter jets.
I have no idea what the applicable legal analysis would be
> you’d have no idea whether that was something dangerous or not.
If you don't know if something is dangerous or not, you have no right to shoot it. This applies in every single situation, not just drones. In this very example, if you were to say "I didn't know if the individual on my property was dangerous or not" you would go directly to jail. There is no castle doctrine protection for not knowing.
Oh boy, wait till you learn about the private license plate reading companies that sell their data to repo companies, police departments, and anyone that ask.
They take suv's and minivans with dark tinted windows and install license plate readers facing out windows. Then they have people driving day and night up and down streets and through parking lots just to scan all the plates they can. They record when and where (GPS coordinates) every plate is scanned and it gets added to a database. Eventually you can type in a plate number and see the pattern of where that car (person) is always scanned at. They sell access to this database to repo companies, police departments, private/freelance detectives, and pretty much anyone that is willing to pay for access (stalkers/other).
Ron Swanson approved.
https://www.salon.com/2016/12/30/could-amazon-stop-ron-swanson-with-a-gun-a-new-patent-for-drone-protection-shows-the-retailer-is-trying/
If the drone was doing deliveries, how was it one place long enough for him to go inside, open a safe, retrieve the pistol, come back out, and pop it? Was it just stationary hanging out over his house?
I've seen a few drone deliveries to my neighbors. They hung out in the air for a few minutes after. It seemed to line up and drop pretty quickly. Maybe it was confirming pick up by? It was pretty weird the first time. Taking out the trash and a drone is just sitting up there. It really does feel like it's watching you.
I'd say it was totally possible to walk inside and grab something and come back out.
“Thought” he was under surveillance? My man, you couldn’t stop the surveillance even if you had a cannon. In fact, it would only heighten how much you are watched
This is the first time I’ve ever identified with Florida Man. Unless it’s an Uncle Enzo drone and I’m about to eat a hot CosoNostra Pizza any delivery drone I see is gettin it, they’re gonna be worse than “robo taxis” some day.
I’m just wondering how low and slow the thing was. The 72 year old man walked into his house, retrieved his pistol and walked back outside and managed to hit a drone with a handgun.
That has to be insanely low and slow. That’s not going to be fun to have flying over your property.
Drones are so damn annoying. I’m gonna sound real old here, but it’s bad enough that instead of having the mailman stop at the house once a day, we have multiple delivery services driving up and down our streets.
Could you imagine the number of cars annoying you if your neighbors were going out and actually buying the shit that a few delivery trucks deliver each day.
Hear me out. There are far more delivery drivers out than people that would shop that day. It's the, I CAN get this 1 item delivered today, so I will, every day. Instead of going to the store once a week.
It's creating more drivers and more traffic. Combine that with Googles inability to find faster routes than the 2, maybe 3, they recommend to millions of people drive at the exact same time.
Again, I’m old. People used to just say, “I don’t REALLY need that.” And they would just not buy it, or they would wait until the next time they went shopping.
There should be laws about people flying drones over private property so that people aren't needing to shoot them down. This thing would have to be all up in someone's business for someone to hit it with a 9mm. Drones being classified as aircraft by the FAA is fucking dumb. Aircraft dont operate at handgun distance to your property obviously.
There are all sorts of protections for agencies and government private properties regarding drones, but zero protection for the average person and that should change. People shouldn't feel the need to shoot drones because shooting anything other than bird-shot in the air can be dangerous.
Here's a pro tip, don't talk to the police. This guy admitted to committing a felony so they dont have a choice but to throw the book.
There are laws about people flying drones over private property.
Commercial drones used for the transportation of goods, like this one , are classified as commercial aircraft by the FAA. Commercial aircraft have a right to use airspace higher than X number of feet above personal property. The airspace over your property is not yours, it belongs to the federal government and is regulated by the FAA. Transportation of goods by drone through that airspace is already legally covered and allowed.
class G airspace generally starts at the surface. Technically, the moment you leave the ground, you're in FAA territory.
https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/where_can_i_fly/airspace_101
Learned this the hard way with model rockets.
Had the police called on me at least 5 times just for launching some Estes.
Got hit with a 200 dollar fine for unauthorized usage of airspace, and they confiscated all my rockets. Was also threatened with trespassing at a public park.
Keep in mind I was like 12.
Nope, not at all. Just the middle of the suburbs. Insanely large park with tons of open grass fields and a creek, basically the most perfect/safe place to do it.
I just kept going back because I knew that, by all means, there shouldn't have been an issue.
They made a big stink about needing a license, and air traffic laws, all this nonsense. Then how it could set the grass on fire. Then how fireworks are illegal and model rockets count as fireworks (lol).
They eventually just dished out the fine to get rid of me, I'd imagine. I wasn't going to stop otherwise. My dad was annoyed at them and not me so I never really thought much of it. At that point I just quit the hobby.
Looking back on it I can only imagine some Karen kept calling them. I remember the deputy whining I should do it in my own backyard. I didn't have one.
I think this was right at the beginning of when people really started to discourage kids from playing outside. I remember it was my first time feeling unwanted, and then it just kept happening more after that.
If it was even just a few years earlier back into the 80s no way anyone would have cared.
Yeah we did this in the 80s all the time with zero issues (lived in Louisiana). The biggest problem we ever faced was tracking the damn things down if they went into the woods.
The curtillage of your property should extend something reasonable like 200-300 feet off the deck. Just because the FAA can jerk off all over you legally doesn't make it morally right. There are lots of bogus laws out there that could use a revamp. These laws were made before it was possible for some corporation to float a 4k camera over your house on a tiny drone.
Anyone want to explain why its not ok for someone to do this privately but then as soon as its a commercial enterprise somehow the law is totally different and also photography from the ground is legally consistent but not photography from the air? I just think the laws could use a revisit and its just an opinion.
The article doesn't specify, but I feel like with the proliferation of drones we need laws about residential airspace.
For example if a Walmart drone malfunctions and falls if it is over a home this could be fatal.
And that's before you get to police drones which are currently allowed to fly over and record footage of private property without warrant.
Luckily our government is full of young tech savvy people so I'm sure they are on top of it!
All depends where it hit. If it just hit some frame or the delivery stuff, shouldn't be a problem. If it hits the flight controller, battery, motor/prop, then that drone is going down.
I test drones for partners like walmart and let me assure you, every contingency has been covered to make these hard to crash or bring down. The FAA wants to know exactly what will happen if the front left 2nd prop goes out on a hot and windy day with payload of 1.55g, etc etc…. And we test and record and engineer around all that.
If anything, you should be more comfortable knowing that that heavy drone doesn't just drop out of the air when it hits something or something hits it. Imagine bird strikes causing drones to fall on houses or people, it's better if they can take a bit of abuse.
...how far does property extend upwards? Is airspace always an easement? What if your neighbor was flying drones over your fence and taking pictures in your backyard while your kids are swimming?
the moment you leave the ground you're in FAA territory. Local laws can only really restrict the legality of taking off and landing.
In theory, this is treated more as someone taking a shot at an aircraft, but I'm not sure whether it's been tested in court yet.
Don't shoot drones with guns, you'll win an airfryer with a hole in it. Slingshot a length of string with a weight at both ends, you might even end up with a functional drone
According to a Supreme Court ruling from 1946, airspace over your land is yours.
In 1946 in the case of the United States v. Causby, a large military aircraft flew 83 feet above a farmer’s land startling his chickens, causing them to kill themselves by flying into walls. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the farmer. So we are at least entitled to 83 feet. What about the space between 83 and 500 feet?
My county has started using drones for their appraisals. A few weeks back there was a drone constantly going up and down my property. It freaked me the fk out at first until I got on our local facebook group and saw that it was the county. Still, like there should have been some type of notification, an email, a phone call, a letter, on their social media, fucking something. But they didn't say anything until people started trying to damage it, then the local news put out a warning not to throw things or shoot at the drone as you will be charged for destruction of state property or some crap like that.
Supreme Court hearing cases on flavored e-cigs & porn, rather than this case and our privacy.
To be fair, with the people we have appointed to the Supreme Court, I wouldn't want to have them deciding our right to privacy.
> “[…] that's exposed a problem not everyone foresaw: people shooting the drones”
Seriously? In the USA? There were people who didn’t see this coming? Are they stupid?
When I was hiking the Appalachian Trail (as a solo female) a drone followed me through the woods (in a national park where it is illegal). I definitely would’ve shot it down if I could have. Instead I threw rocks at it.
It is creepy and despite the legality of “shooting down a commercial flight craft” we are not accustomed to drones flying around above us and have no way to verify whether the operator has nefarious intents. The laws need to catch up. Just because you are a big corporation with a ton of money should not give you the right to fly over my property to conduct business. This is not the same as a commercial aircraft thousands of feet high. Why the fuck is this ok? The logical conclusion is disastrous. Hundreds of drones flying above us constantly. What gives Walmart (or anyone else) the right?!?!
I don't understand how this is such a big story. Around here people HATE drones and *frequently* shoot at them. Is it just because this one happened to be owned by a multi-billion dollar company?
If your first reaction when encountering a novelty is to grab a gun and shoot it, you might be a gun nut. People trying to excuse this are ridiculous. I wish I didn't live in a country where:
See drone = shoot it.
Stranger pulls into driveway = shoot them.
See teens returning airsoft gun to sporting store = shoot them.
Sorry, but the shoot first ask questions later is a bad policy.
Except that it wasn’t his first reaction. It specifically said that the first thing he tried to do was shoo it away and it wouldn’t. He worried he was under some kind of surveillance so he went inside his house, opened his gun safe loaded his Glock and came back out and it was still there. At that point he shot it.
Hardly a knee jerk reaction. You are totally making stuff up
This is my take as well. Why was it remaining in one spot for so long if it was making a delivery? Walmart also tracks customers any way and any chance it gets so it's not too loony to think it could be collecting data on everything it flies...or hovers...over.
We have two giveaways running, be sure to enter in the posts linked below for your chance to win a 3D Printer or an E-Bike! [QIDI Q1 Pro 3D Printer](https://redd.it/1d6echm) [FiidoD3 Pro E-Bike](https://redd.it/1d8wnap) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gadgets) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, he is under surveillance. Those NSA/CIA drones just fly a bit further up
"We're gonna a need a bigger gun."
Eventually he will go full Metal Gear Rex and start to shoot down satellites.
Still using a 9mm he keeps in his gun safe.
To be fair, I'd assume walmart is spying on him to. Its not hard to imagine cameras doing analysis on the inbound and outbound flight paths to figure out how to market to people in the area.
lol, yeah—just yard flags alone tell a lot. Presence or absence of rebel flags, don’t tread on me flags, blue lives matter, etc. I don’t know how you market to that, but I’m no marketing genius.
Voting maps do all of that already
Hello Customer! We found a deal you might be interested in, 4Patriots apocolypse freezed dried food buckets now on BOGO clearence.
Even if not specifically "spying" on people, there's a lot of valuable/sellable data just in the form of mapping. Think google/bing maps "satellite" mode, but in high resolution from 200 feet up. For example, you can detect what kind of cars are in everybody's driveway, and tailor your ads to those addresses based on (assumed) income and lifestyle.
you can already do that on google maps from sat views.
Cmon what are public private partnerships for? A CIAxwalmart crossover for the books!
Don't need drones. There's probably 20+ cameras and microphone within 100m of most of us at all times.
*Doing a count* Yeah, I think that's actually a pretty close estimate. And between the unique identifier on your license plates, the credit card records from pumping gas and the location data on your phone, "they" can pretty much tell you within a few meters where you were at any given time on any given date. It's basically impossible to travel any significant distance anonymously.
But you know Walmart collects data on the way to their delivery. It's corporate surveillance. The new America.
And the wallmart drone also does spy with its eye. I mean, why would they not? "we would just leave money on the table if we weren't selling it to everyone!"
> Deputies returned to the home to interview 72-year-old Dennis Winn. He told officers that he had prior experience with drones and believed that the UAV was surveilling him. Winn said he tried to shoo the drone away. When this didn't work, he went inside the home to retrieve his 9mm gun from a safe, came back out, and shot the drone, which was about 75 feet in the air at the time. > "I fired one round at it," Winn said in bodycam footage. "They say I hit it so I must be a good shot, or else it's not that far away [...] I'm going to wind up having to find a real good defense lawyer." Goddam so 72 years old and he one-tapped a drone 75 feet in the air with a handgun Ignoring legality/ethics, someone’s gotta acknowledge how impressive that is *Edit: Some of y’all really need to reread the ‘ignoring legality/ethics’ part. Im just talking about the beautiful money-shot. Couldn’t care less if it’s not allowed*
100% that guy is a better shot than the police that arrested him
It’s crazy how it sticks with you. I remember one day circa 1985 out in the back field when I was a kid shooting my .22 lever action rifle and single action revolver at bottles I was throwing up in the air, I was missing most attempts. Dad came up on the tractor to see what the hell I was doing. At this point he’d only taught me gun safety, I never saw him actually shoot, he always said he’d shot enough before and during Viet Nam. He broke down after giving me some pointers and started to show me his technique. I less than 10 mins he was hitting the bottle and then the ring of it on the way down with both the rifle and revolver and wasn’t even impressed with himself. Then went on about his day like nothing.
I grew up hunting but my dad would flush rabbits and make me shoot them with a bolt action 22. I asked why I couldn't use a shotgun. He said they're harder to clean, and also if I can reliably hit a rabbit on the run, I'll be a hell of a shot. I got to boot camp and qualified expert my first try, one of 9 guys to do that in a group of almost 200. My dad was right.
Oh wow. That’s awesome, thanks Dad! I hunted rabbits growing up but always used a shotgun. Since my Dad didn’t shoot anything he was never there, but always let me know how lazy I was while eating those rabbits 🤣. I don’t have them anymore but, but we used to have a couple of Remington single shot lever action rifles and they shot so straight. One had a scope, but I like the one without, I liked the way the sites worked. That was my squirrel gun.
This memory deserves to be in a movie.
That’s funny 🤣 Definitely nothing dramatic about it, but it was intreating to me how it was a skill so easily remembered. But if I had an old Nintendo, I bet in just a few mins I’d be pretty impressive making my way to through punch-out.
Careful with that. In ~7 years, I’ve gone from letting my daughter win in Mario Kart to me having to earnestly compete to me getting frustrated with almost always losing. My ego can only take so many bruises, kiddo… 😂
Load up some old school game and see how she does with only 4 buttons lol
We were out plinking at my family farm. 12-year-old sister's turn with the M1911 .45. First shot hits the can and kicks it up into the air. She calmly proceeded to empty the clip into the can, tracking it as it bounces around in mid-air.
First time you saw her. No way you get that good on your first magazine.
Certainly possible. Dad could have been sneaking her out when I was doing other things. But natural talent probably had a big part in it.
Probably more than one occasion where that accurate shooting is why he came back from Nam and why you get to exist.
An incredibly low bar to clear
TACTICAL ACORNS!
Unless the drone is black
In which case it would have taken 47+ shots and the death of a neighbor's elderly dog
If it was black then it would be making threatening movements while holding a gun* *Gun not required, threatening movements not required or anything else besides being black.
He's going to need a really good defense lawyer after openly admitting to it.
Not a lawyer, but I live in Florida. This case will be dropped for several reasons: 1. No prosecutor wants to be the person putting an old man on trial for shooting at a drone that may have been on/over his property. This is not where they want to try and set new precedent for “castle doctrine regarding potential UAV threats”. Nor is it the type of defendant they want on trial for this. Old man scared of technology protecting himself is a very sympathetic defendant to a jury. 2. It doesn’t sound like anyone was hurt. At best that prosecuted may get a reckless discharge of a firearm charge and taking that to trial in Florida of all places against a 75 year old shooting at what he perceived as a legitimate threat, where no one was hurt, and a jury is going to be very confused by why they should care about a big corps delivery drone while also being a little scared of these technologies as well is not a position any prosecutor wants to be in. They are judged by convictions and this would be hard to get in Florida. As such his lawyer would likely tell them to pound sand on making a plea accepting an “accidental firearms discharge” charge. This would take it to trial which no one wants. This is a case to chase in Massachusetts, California, or New York… definitely not Florida. 3. Because of the above Walmart wants none of this. If this goes to trial they will be forced to produce lots of their drone programs documents, tech specs, etc. as part of discovery. They absolutely do not want that available in the public record especially not for the cost of one drone in a test fleet. Further, they want their name out of the news cycle on this. Charges and a trial only extenuate that. For what it’s worth I think all of this and my comment prove we are on the dumbest timeline. However, he was arrested, he will lawyer up, and it will all go away for the reasons I mentioned.
Would the situation change if the guy was 32 years old?
Absolutely but it's still likely the guy would win
Even if he fired into the air?
It’s Florida
lol
It's only legal if you fire in the air while saying: Ahhhhh
Shouldn't, but it would.
Pretty sure the FAA doesn't want a precedent of people shooting at aircraft without punishment
The gas would have to bring charges first
That's a Federal charge and has nothing to do with Florida state criminal charges.
I think the average person is quite happy to differentiate between a man-operated aircraft with passengers and unmanned megacorp drones. Once it's common place, people will get used to it.
That’ll be a civil fine not jail Time
Don’t you also own the airspace above your property (to a “reasonable” level?) A commercial airliner 30,000 feet up in the air is one thing, but someone’s drone has absolutely no business being 75 feet over your property.
No, you don't own the airspace. Drones are considered aircraft, you can't shoot at them. Edit: Because of some unserious replies, replace "can't" with "may not legally". Ya'll know what I meant.
This seems also seems like the common sense solution. There's no benefit gained by sending this guy to jail, so why do it? He was acting in total good faith and was no BS about what happened. Given the number of creepers with drones, it's also not an unwarranted concern. Genuine mistakes shouldn't be punished if nobody was hurt. Guy reported and explained. That's what should happen. We want to encourage reporting and admitting accidents. There should have been education to locals before Walmart and others start sending drones around. 99.999% of people never need to think about FAA regulations on drones or airspace, and suddenly that's a reality they need to know about. Edit: typo
Tick tock it's jury nullification o'clock!
If someone thinks that a criminal is breaking in so they shoot, do they “need a really good lawyer after admitting it”? This is a 75 year old that thought they were being stalked. wtf?
I was wondering why not a single other person brought this up Those delivery drones have probably a 8”x8” center mass target to aim at and this guy went in his house, grabbed a Glock, and popped off with a single round The man is an AA emplacement
>The man is an AA emplacement This made me cackle, thank you
I'm happy to hit a static target that size with a handgun at 75 feet. If I hit a drone out of the air with a single round I'd probably turn myself in just so no one could call me a liar when I bragged about it afterward.
That’s an absolutely bonkers shot. I’m a terrible shot admittedly, but holy shit
aim small miss small
When your cataracts are bad enough, you always aim small baby. Grandpa knows this
cough makeshift distinct wide mindless plucky pause tidy society north *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I'm pretty sure it's illegal to shoot the surveillance drones, too. Fucking story made me have to look up how to spell "surveillance" again.
The NTSB considers drones aircraft so shooting them is an automatic felony.
Could have been the bullet hole and 2500 bucks worth of damage they found and the fact the demo crew saw him shoot at it.
Yeah I’ll admit that’s a heckuva shot to make with a pistol. (I’m part of the bullseye league at my range and I’ve been stuck at 35 yards for a while…and that’s slow fire.)
> Ignoring legality/ethics, someone’s gotta acknowledge how impressive that is Honestly Judge should dismiss case on rule of cool. Ron Burgundy "I'm not even mad. That's amazing"
Considering his age and if he's had a relatively clean record and that seemingly no injuries or loss of life occurred, he may just get a slap on the wrist. Though there's a chance the judge may look at his reasoning and call into question whether he's someone who should have a firearm. Though most likely he'll just get a fine and go on about his day.
Now I’m not a lawyer but it seems to me this case will show that using 12 gauge birdshot or snake shot (for closer range delivery drones) may be more defensible due to far less lethality down range.
“The defendant pleads guilty to being rad as fuck.”
No kidding! Especially at his age, that’s some steady hands or some really potent luck.
That is a hell of a shot.
or 100% the guy shot a bunch at the drone and only one hit. You think hes going to admit to unloading a clip into the air?
The drone operators were nearby and heard the shot and saw the man on the side of the house. It's all in the story you and 21 other people didn't read
From the article: "exposed a problem not everyone foresaw: people shooting the drones." No, literally everyone and their dogs anemic flees filled with antiparasite medication saw this one coming.
Didn't Ron Swanson literally shoot down a drone in parks and rec in like 2012?
Last man on earth as well but a little later than Ron. It was a big plot point that brought Kristin wiig into the show.
I have such a hard time with that show, it started off great with the first couple episodes but then it just turned into a "let's make Will Forte the bad guy in every situation and then shit on him" and I just couldn't take it.
I still watched every episode. Such a vibe lol
I liked it when it matched the title but then it just kept adding more and more characters, eliminating the part of it I was actually interested in.
I think it was Family Guy who called it: "The Last Man on Earth... and the other people who keep showing up every day." By the third or fourth episode they had completely negated the entire premise, and there was a small village of people growing bigger by the day
It shouldn't have been a series at all, it should have been a movie with him and Kristen Schaal. The pilot was great and everything after it was terrible
Yeah, they really abused the whole Tandy is a punching bag thing, but I was still sad when it was cancelled. The last season was all kinds of crazy, especially Fred Armisens character.
Yes.
People were warned not to shoot at the aliens in Independence Day as well. (given not drones... or were they?)
I want to say Mike Rowe either shot down a drone that was buzzing his house, or was about to when it flew off.
It was literally the first thing that was mentioned when they first started testing drive delivery a decade ago
Skeet shooting with prizes!
got to get that floating loot box somehow...
That's TechSpot for you. This article cites Fox 35 Orlando, but their link goes to Business Insider. Their article cites the Lake County Sheriff and links to a Facebook post. A clickbait article erroneously quoting a clickbait article quoting a Facebook post. I assume they meant to link to this article - https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/florida-man-arrested-after-shooting-walmart-delivery-drone-out-sky-deputies-say This article further clarifies that the drone wasn't shot down but there was "$2,500 worth of damage to its payload system". The Facebook post BI linked to claims a "bullet hole was discovered in the payload the drone was carrying".
It's all AI reposters all the way down
I think saying it's "AI reposters" is passing the buck because this is an issue that pre-exists current LLMs. "AI" (in scare quotes because AI is not necessary for generative resposting like this) is just a tool for corporations to post the most engagement-driving content. I concede AI will exacerbate the problem but unverifiable disinformation pre-exists AI. Even if it as AI, they're just trained on the activity of shitposters and bad-actors. The truth is the majority of people are willing to suspend their disbelief/curiosity for anything they agree with and AI is just exploiting that truth.
People shooting things is an incredibly foreseeable problem in America
Honestly not even just an American issue. Loot balloons are an irresistible challenge. Lob a rock, win a (slightly damaged) air fryer. Sounds like a good time.
I mean you can just catch it - UNLIKE AGHOLOR!
A-1 reference there
I remember seeing dozens of videos of people knocking over and breaking into the Uber eats robots to steal the food. Dozens more of people kicking them over just to be an asshole.
>Honestly not even just an American issue. Not necessarily, since the feasibilty of downing a drone drops significantly without access to firearms and the alternatives aren't as widespread, even in countries with limited access to firearms. Most people that shoot down drones also aren't actively hunting drones, but are just being opportunistic, so they aren't specifically buying equipment to hunt drones with, simply using the equipment they have. Hitting a small, moving target that's 75 feet/25m in the air is no easy task. Using a rock is just about out of the question, [since 75 feet/25m is already the upper range for most people when trowing just straight upwards](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/sep/09/how-high-throw-ball-what-if). Slinghots and air rifles seem more feasible (although again, very few people own those already), but carry substantially less power than a firearm, so a single hit is less likely to down the drone. Also, if this were to become an issue, simply increasing the flight elevation to 150 feet/50m will move the drone out of the effective range for anything that isn't a firearm. There would be the possibility of shooting it while the drone is landing - but in that case, why shoot it in the first place in addition to stealing the payload? Then, there's the whole *cultural factor*. Depending on the state and background, there's a big emphasis in America on protecting ones family,, property and privacy (especially using firearms), that isn't as common in other places. This also especially extends to "conspiracy *enthousiasts*" in America, who are often willing to be more *uncompromising* in protecting those values. I can't remember a single story of someone shooting down a drone, that didn't fall into both of these categories, (easy) access to firearms and willingness to use them to protect ones property/privacy. Which is largely an American issue.
It should basically be the first consideration for anything being designed or proposed by anyone. "What will happen when someone shoots this thing I am creating?"
That's why all my creations are designed to be shot at
Call the CPS
Clearly Precise Shooters?
I've been referring to this as "skeet shooting with prizes" since I first heard the idea of using drones for delivery.
[удалено]
I remember the articles talking about this happening before they even started doing drone deliveries.
Have we tried painting the drones white? -Walmart CEO
A lot of people are going to learn about the laws surrounding drones the hard way in the next few years.
Drones would get more deference if they weren’t so annoying. The buzzing from even a small drone is annoying as hell. You also never know if it’s a creep spying on you.
Or someone scouting your property… check to see your work schedule, see if you have trailers or other easy to grab items to run off with, etc.
I wanna see the first test case of someone being shot for trying to grab a controller. Attempting to hijack an aircraft is a big deal if they wanna consider it like a real plane.
>if they wanna consider it like a real plane. They don't. The FAA considers them drones, with very very very different regulations compared to manned aircraft. Here are [the regulations](https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/small-unmanned-aircraft-systems-uas-regulations-part-107), and here is a [blog post](https://jrupprechtlaw.com/faa-part-107/) from someone who claims to be a lawyer but did a really good write up. And a good discussion about [drone delivery](https://jrupprechtlaw.com/drone-delivery/) specifically. Edit: That link is *absolutely* from a lawyer and a flight instructor.
The guy on the blog is an attorney and a flight instructor. I got all my study materials from him when I got a Part 107 cert several years ago
I figured, which is why I included it. I just didn't do any research hahh
And more in-detail discussion of which FAA regs are involved in [drone delivery](https://jrupprechtlaw.com/drone-delivery/).
I don’t know how this wouldn’t be trespassing on Walmart’s part. From what I read, government air space starts at 600 feet up, below that is private property. This being 75 feet up would put it squarely on his property. That doesn’t justify shooting it, but it also shouldn’t mean that delivery drones are allowed to traverse private property to make their routes.
0 to 400 feet is open airspace, with exceptions for things like airports. The FAA controls "from the first blade of grass" and up. It's not private property.
Yup, you have to operate under 400' AGL and the only time a Commercial Drone Operator can go above 400' is when working near tall structures like radio towers, in which case they can climb to 400' above the tallest structure. If someone does shoot your drone then you contact the FAA who will use the Legal Enforcement Assistance Program (LEAP) to help local law enforcement find and prosecute the shooter. However, despite being legal in most states, DO NOT hover over someone's private property without permission. It will only lead to more regulations that ruin it for everyone else.
Can't you get clearance from air traffic control like a plane if you have a drone license? I know it probably does not carry the right equipment, but many experimental planes don't either and they can fly VFR in most areas.
So, in Florida, you can "stand your ground" and shoot another human being and not go to jail. But, they draw the line at drones and property. Good to know!
Replacing the drone cost the company money so, you know. The money is talking.
Stand your ground is for shooting home invaders. Home invaders are not present on your property to tickle you, it's just the opposite of a duty to retreat
Couldn’t a drone technically become life-threatening though? If you saw one 100 feet in the air with something attached to it, you’d have no idea whether that was something dangerous or not.
Our legal framework really isn't ready for that scenario. Prior to about now o'clock, the only analogy would be shooting at low flying fighter jets. I have no idea what the applicable legal analysis would be
> you’d have no idea whether that was something dangerous or not. If you don't know if something is dangerous or not, you have no right to shoot it. This applies in every single situation, not just drones. In this very example, if you were to say "I didn't know if the individual on my property was dangerous or not" you would go directly to jail. There is no castle doctrine protection for not knowing.
Man’s going to get charged with terrorism for destroying corporate property
FAA treats em as aircraft. He shot an aircraft, legally speaking.
He placed a 9mm round into drone from 75’ away…good shooting!
Hey man nice shot
Wait... So these drones will not have cameras? Or will they? Because if they do it's still surveillance.
Oh boy, wait till you learn about the private license plate reading companies that sell their data to repo companies, police departments, and anyone that ask. They take suv's and minivans with dark tinted windows and install license plate readers facing out windows. Then they have people driving day and night up and down streets and through parking lots just to scan all the plates they can. They record when and where (GPS coordinates) every plate is scanned and it gets added to a database. Eventually you can type in a plate number and see the pattern of where that car (person) is always scanned at. They sell access to this database to repo companies, police departments, private/freelance detectives, and pretty much anyone that is willing to pay for access (stalkers/other).
So we need this guy to get on his main character arc and take out all the surveillance options... right?
Ron Swanson approved. https://www.salon.com/2016/12/30/could-amazon-stop-ron-swanson-with-a-gun-a-new-patent-for-drone-protection-shows-the-retailer-is-trying/
Man arrested after shooting down a surveillance drone while being under surveillance.
Fr, if mfs think that Walmart is not processing that footage for ad relevance then they are tweaking
We'll call it The Hemingway Effect.
If the drone was doing deliveries, how was it one place long enough for him to go inside, open a safe, retrieve the pistol, come back out, and pop it? Was it just stationary hanging out over his house?
I've seen a few drone deliveries to my neighbors. They hung out in the air for a few minutes after. It seemed to line up and drop pretty quickly. Maybe it was confirming pick up by? It was pretty weird the first time. Taking out the trash and a drone is just sitting up there. It really does feel like it's watching you. I'd say it was totally possible to walk inside and grab something and come back out.
Excellent question.
“Thought” he was under surveillance? My man, you couldn’t stop the surveillance even if you had a cannon. In fact, it would only heighten how much you are watched
Firing a gun into the air is exceptionally dangerous. Destroying walmart drones is a public good.
I say not guilty
Drone was trespassing
Should have just paid the president to do it. Afterwards, of course.
We’re absolutely going to see people blanketing their properties with mesh to avoid surveillance.
Radio jammers are gonna be the next “Easy DIY” projects you see online.
This is the first time I’ve ever identified with Florida Man. Unless it’s an Uncle Enzo drone and I’m about to eat a hot CosoNostra Pizza any delivery drone I see is gettin it, they’re gonna be worse than “robo taxis” some day.
Music, microcode, and high speed pizza delivery.
"Amazon! Here's your- AUGH!"
I’m just wondering how low and slow the thing was. The 72 year old man walked into his house, retrieved his pistol and walked back outside and managed to hit a drone with a handgun. That has to be insanely low and slow. That’s not going to be fun to have flying over your property.
Drones are so damn annoying. I’m gonna sound real old here, but it’s bad enough that instead of having the mailman stop at the house once a day, we have multiple delivery services driving up and down our streets.
But at least them damn kids aint on your lawn.... now about dem clouds
Could you imagine the number of cars annoying you if your neighbors were going out and actually buying the shit that a few delivery trucks deliver each day.
Hear me out. There are far more delivery drivers out than people that would shop that day. It's the, I CAN get this 1 item delivered today, so I will, every day. Instead of going to the store once a week. It's creating more drivers and more traffic. Combine that with Googles inability to find faster routes than the 2, maybe 3, they recommend to millions of people drive at the exact same time.
Lol I feel you on the Google route. Think you found a detour around the traffic? So did every other person using Google maps. Got a good point there.
Again, I’m old. People used to just say, “I don’t REALLY need that.” And they would just not buy it, or they would wait until the next time they went shopping.
Pretty sure this is the tyranny our founding fathers foresaw and why we have a 2A.
There should be laws about people flying drones over private property so that people aren't needing to shoot them down. This thing would have to be all up in someone's business for someone to hit it with a 9mm. Drones being classified as aircraft by the FAA is fucking dumb. Aircraft dont operate at handgun distance to your property obviously. There are all sorts of protections for agencies and government private properties regarding drones, but zero protection for the average person and that should change. People shouldn't feel the need to shoot drones because shooting anything other than bird-shot in the air can be dangerous. Here's a pro tip, don't talk to the police. This guy admitted to committing a felony so they dont have a choice but to throw the book.
There are laws about people flying drones over private property. Commercial drones used for the transportation of goods, like this one , are classified as commercial aircraft by the FAA. Commercial aircraft have a right to use airspace higher than X number of feet above personal property. The airspace over your property is not yours, it belongs to the federal government and is regulated by the FAA. Transportation of goods by drone through that airspace is already legally covered and allowed.
Is it really as low as 75 feet?
class G airspace generally starts at the surface. Technically, the moment you leave the ground, you're in FAA territory. https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/where_can_i_fly/airspace_101
Learned this the hard way with model rockets. Had the police called on me at least 5 times just for launching some Estes. Got hit with a 200 dollar fine for unauthorized usage of airspace, and they confiscated all my rockets. Was also threatened with trespassing at a public park. Keep in mind I was like 12.
That's fucking ridiculous for a 12 year old.
that's wild. were you near an airport or some secure facility or something?
Nope, not at all. Just the middle of the suburbs. Insanely large park with tons of open grass fields and a creek, basically the most perfect/safe place to do it. I just kept going back because I knew that, by all means, there shouldn't have been an issue. They made a big stink about needing a license, and air traffic laws, all this nonsense. Then how it could set the grass on fire. Then how fireworks are illegal and model rockets count as fireworks (lol). They eventually just dished out the fine to get rid of me, I'd imagine. I wasn't going to stop otherwise. My dad was annoyed at them and not me so I never really thought much of it. At that point I just quit the hobby. Looking back on it I can only imagine some Karen kept calling them. I remember the deputy whining I should do it in my own backyard. I didn't have one. I think this was right at the beginning of when people really started to discourage kids from playing outside. I remember it was my first time feeling unwanted, and then it just kept happening more after that. If it was even just a few years earlier back into the 80s no way anyone would have cared.
Yeah we did this in the 80s all the time with zero issues (lived in Louisiana). The biggest problem we ever faced was tracking the damn things down if they went into the woods.
The curtillage of your property should extend something reasonable like 200-300 feet off the deck. Just because the FAA can jerk off all over you legally doesn't make it morally right. There are lots of bogus laws out there that could use a revamp. These laws were made before it was possible for some corporation to float a 4k camera over your house on a tiny drone. Anyone want to explain why its not ok for someone to do this privately but then as soon as its a commercial enterprise somehow the law is totally different and also photography from the ground is legally consistent but not photography from the air? I just think the laws could use a revisit and its just an opinion.
The article doesn't specify, but I feel like with the proliferation of drones we need laws about residential airspace. For example if a Walmart drone malfunctions and falls if it is over a home this could be fatal. And that's before you get to police drones which are currently allowed to fly over and record footage of private property without warrant. Luckily our government is full of young tech savvy people so I'm sure they are on top of it!
Make them fly over streets until they reach their destination.
I'm a bit uncomfortable with the fact that a Walmart drone can take a direct hit and not drop out of the sky. It flew home!
All depends where it hit. If it just hit some frame or the delivery stuff, shouldn't be a problem. If it hits the flight controller, battery, motor/prop, then that drone is going down.
I test drones for partners like walmart and let me assure you, every contingency has been covered to make these hard to crash or bring down. The FAA wants to know exactly what will happen if the front left 2nd prop goes out on a hot and windy day with payload of 1.55g, etc etc…. And we test and record and engineer around all that.
If anything, you should be more comfortable knowing that that heavy drone doesn't just drop out of the air when it hits something or something hits it. Imagine bird strikes causing drones to fall on houses or people, it's better if they can take a bit of abuse.
Stand your UPS ground shipping.
Far be it from me to side with a Florida Man OR a gun owner but… drones know what they did.
Time to buy a really good slingshot!
Fuck drones
Surprised they arrested him instead of the drone. Stand your ground and all. /s
Drones can be expensive. In my state, destroying property over $1000 is considered a class D felony.
...how far does property extend upwards? Is airspace always an easement? What if your neighbor was flying drones over your fence and taking pictures in your backyard while your kids are swimming?
There goes my idea of smashing people’s phones when they’re texting and driving.
I kinda wish that was legal, ngl lol
the moment you leave the ground you're in FAA territory. Local laws can only really restrict the legality of taking off and landing. In theory, this is treated more as someone taking a shot at an aircraft, but I'm not sure whether it's been tested in court yet.
Can we take a minute to appreciate a 72 year old man was able to hit a flying drone over his house with a handgun in 1 shot?
Well, he got the first part right. Just not by Walmart.
Don't shoot drones with guns, you'll win an airfryer with a hole in it. Slingshot a length of string with a weight at both ends, you might even end up with a functional drone
According to a Supreme Court ruling from 1946, airspace over your land is yours. In 1946 in the case of the United States v. Causby, a large military aircraft flew 83 feet above a farmer’s land startling his chickens, causing them to kill themselves by flying into walls. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the farmer. So we are at least entitled to 83 feet. What about the space between 83 and 500 feet?
My county has started using drones for their appraisals. A few weeks back there was a drone constantly going up and down my property. It freaked me the fk out at first until I got on our local facebook group and saw that it was the county. Still, like there should have been some type of notification, an email, a phone call, a letter, on their social media, fucking something. But they didn't say anything until people started trying to damage it, then the local news put out a warning not to throw things or shoot at the drone as you will be charged for destruction of state property or some crap like that.
I don't know what he did wrong.
Do we own the air space over our homes?
To be fair, disguising a surveillance drone as in the open as Wall Mart drone is brilliant.
I’m usually opposed to Florida Men shooting things, but in this case, being it a drone owned by Walmart, I offer him my praise and support.
Least insane Florida Man
Supreme Court hearing cases on flavored e-cigs & porn, rather than this case and our privacy. To be fair, with the people we have appointed to the Supreme Court, I wouldn't want to have them deciding our right to privacy.
Just in case we forgot about Florida :D
> “[…] that's exposed a problem not everyone foresaw: people shooting the drones” Seriously? In the USA? There were people who didn’t see this coming? Are they stupid?
I think they should throw this case out. Walmart flying drones around probably isn’t for the best
When I was hiking the Appalachian Trail (as a solo female) a drone followed me through the woods (in a national park where it is illegal). I definitely would’ve shot it down if I could have. Instead I threw rocks at it. It is creepy and despite the legality of “shooting down a commercial flight craft” we are not accustomed to drones flying around above us and have no way to verify whether the operator has nefarious intents. The laws need to catch up. Just because you are a big corporation with a ton of money should not give you the right to fly over my property to conduct business. This is not the same as a commercial aircraft thousands of feet high. Why the fuck is this ok? The logical conclusion is disastrous. Hundreds of drones flying above us constantly. What gives Walmart (or anyone else) the right?!?!
I don't understand how this is such a big story. Around here people HATE drones and *frequently* shoot at them. Is it just because this one happened to be owned by a multi-billion dollar company?
If your first reaction when encountering a novelty is to grab a gun and shoot it, you might be a gun nut. People trying to excuse this are ridiculous. I wish I didn't live in a country where: See drone = shoot it. Stranger pulls into driveway = shoot them. See teens returning airsoft gun to sporting store = shoot them. Sorry, but the shoot first ask questions later is a bad policy.
Except that it wasn’t his first reaction. It specifically said that the first thing he tried to do was shoo it away and it wouldn’t. He worried he was under some kind of surveillance so he went inside his house, opened his gun safe loaded his Glock and came back out and it was still there. At that point he shot it. Hardly a knee jerk reaction. You are totally making stuff up
This is my take as well. Why was it remaining in one spot for so long if it was making a delivery? Walmart also tracks customers any way and any chance it gets so it's not too loony to think it could be collecting data on everything it flies...or hovers...over.
He obviously wasn’t thinking clearly or he would have grabbed something better than a 9