Hacker News Reader

Comment by pdabbadabba | Hacker News Reader

All true. But I'm not sure this has much to say about whether it is acceptable to shoot the intruding drone.

According to the FAA, it is unlawful to shoot at any aircraft, including drones, as is is outlawed in 18 US Code, 32 - and considered "aircraft sabotage", and is subject to 20 years in jail, a fine, or both.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/32

Of course that is in conflict with Causby, which would likely take precedent at low altitudes, though the not-unlikely result might be a test for exactly what altitude a flight would need to be to be defensible in shooting.

At the end of the day though, whichever way the law sides, the drone operator has civil restitution available (if it can be proved who shot), which should help shape the court cases.

Yes, of course it is illegal to shoot an aircraft! (Though I'm less clear on whether that particular rule applies to consumer drones.) But, again, there is no 'conflict' between the FAA regs and Causby. Causby does not allow you to shoot things, it just establishes the boundaries of property owner's property rights.

So, what we don't have here is jurisprudence that relates to the trespass and/or shooting of objects. Your other statement is correct that you can't shoot a person merely for trespassing, but I'd say it's (at least slightly) more reasonable to assume that if Johnny 5 from Short Circuit (or a scarier robot) were wheeling up to your front door, that you might be within your existing property rights to shoot it.

Because it's property and not people, the redress would likely not be criminal, but civil. Within Causby's 83 foot criteria, the rationality of that defense doesn't really change, whether aircraft or no. Ergo, you would have a conflict between Causby and US Code. I dare say that because it's a federal rule, it would carry less weight than a local one, as 83+n feet is hardly un-arbitrary.

Long story short though, there's quite a lot of nuance here for which we don't have precedent.

I think what we have here is a confusion between rights and remedies. Causby tells you what your rights are. But it doesn't say much about what remedies you're permitted to employ in securing those rights (except getting 5th Amendment takings compensation, which is what was going on in the case). These are quite separate legal questions.

Ordinarily (but not always), you're limited to using peaceful means to secure your rights. That would generally not include shooting stuff, though there may be exception.

So where I think you're right is that we don't have a good rule that tells you whether you can shoot a robot that walks/flies/drives onto your property. This is definitely different from shooting a person, and one could imagine it being permissible in certain situations. And come to think of it, we probably do have questions about your rights to remove or destroy other people's stuff when it's left on your property without your permission. That might be indirectly informative. But I don't have the time or inclination to really look into it at the moment. :)

Sorry, not trying to confuse the two, so much as acknowledging that they're both probably complicated here, but also as remedy often factors in to the severity of a crime, then it extends lenience to the interpretation of a right.

e.g., I can get away with kicking your tire than I can your shin. Of course, damages is a factor here too.

Property rights are complicated as hell though. It occurs to me that one doesn't necessarily even have the unilateral right to destroy one's own property, so, yeah, I'm just going to rest on "it's complicated" and hope somebody more informed comes along to school me.

>At the end of the day though, whichever way the law sides, the drone operator has civil restitution available (if it can be proved who shot), which should help shape the court cases.

Seems to me that the drone operator has already admitted to wrecking his drone into someone's bullet. He better prepare himself to pay up some $0.25 to replace the bullet and maybe a few million for pain, suffering, and emotional trauma.

Isn't this generally the same ruling that allows land owners to shoot trespassers? After hearing about drones with batteries dying falling out of the sky and taking out a child's eye [1], I wouldn't want some random person controlling a drone on my property.

1. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-349367...

EDIT: I'm not saying shooting the thing is the best idea (esp. given bullet trajectory and such), but what real, immediate options does an offended homeowner have here?

> Isn't this generally the same ruling that allows land owners to shoot trespassers?

No. And, at least in the U.S., there is no such ruling. You absolutely cannot shoot someone just for trespassing on your property.

What is the point were you can start shooting?

I know that where I live, Nebraska, the rare instance when someone breaks into a home and gets shot the homeowner is in the clear. There is often talk of "castle doctrine" but I don't really know what that means. I also don't know if the breaking into a home is the important part or if someone on your lawn waving a gun or knife around could be shot with legal blessing.

It's ambiguous, and varies from state to state (the variations usually relate to side issues like whether you have a duty to retreat instead of shooting, etc.) but the general rule is that the response has to be 'reasonable' and proportionate to the reasonably perceived harm.

The Castle Doctrine doesn't, as far as I know, have a single clear meaning, but generally refers to rules that expand the circumstances in which a homeowner can use force (including deadly force) on an intruder to their home.

I don't think it's the same as shooting a trespasser, the theory for shooting trespassers is that they may directly pose a threat to your safety. It's hard to argue that a drone poses such a threat unless they're chasing you or have a weapon mounted on them or something.

If the shooter from OP's link used a .22 or anything other than bird shot, then they are a real fool and a danger to everyone around them. Off the top of my head I'm inclined to think that the reach of a shotgun is probably about the right distance that ought to be protected, maybe a little bit further because of cheap optics.

> I don't think it's the same as shooting a trespasser, the theory for shooting trespassers is that they may directly pose a threat to your safety.

I really feel the need to drive this point home, for obvious reasons: there is no such theory. You CANNOT DO THIS. You cannot shoot a trespasser on your land, just because he is trespassing. There has to be something else involved like reasonable fear of imminent bodily injury. The threat cannot necessarily be implied from the mere fact that he is trespassing. (It's clearly a different case if the trespassing is happening in your field in broad daylight v. in your bedroom in the middle of the night.)

Agreed, I should have been more precise.

Just to clarify, shooting a .22 into the air is still very dangerous. A .22 round can travel a mile or so after being fired to the air.

Anything other than birdshot in this situation would be unacceptable, IMO, assuming shooting the drone is acceptable in the first place.

It's better than assaulting the owner of the obnoxious thing. That would certainly put you on the wrong side of the law; but shooting the thing out of the way might be an acceptable way of defending your privacy. The courts haven't spoken, sooner or later they'll have to.

I don't think putting bullets into a ballistic trajectory without giving thought to what's downrange is particularly better than assaulting an obnoxious drone owner.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com