Flying camera shot down at pigeon shoot

[semperfi211]

animal rights drone damaged

Flying Camera From Animal Rights Group Shot Down at Pigeon Shoot | NBC 10 Philadelphia
So an animal rights group flys a drone over the private property of a hunting shooting club to video them in their pigeon shoot. The drone makes it back to the animal rights group damaged. Should the club be held liable for the damage? Is the airspace over your property yours? If so for how high?

 

[Hammer]

That was funny.

 

[HavokCycle]

there's another thread about this somewhere

 

[semperfi211]

My thoughts are that the craft made it back so those boys need to go to some 3.5 inch rather than 2.75 shells so they never get it back.

 

[semperfi211]

there's another thread about this somewhere

I think this is a yearly shoot so maybe it was about a year ago.

 

[squidvt]

I would say next time a couple more shots at it should take care of it.

 

[eric001]

My thoughts are that the craft made it back so those boys need to go to some 3.5 inch rather than 2.75 shells so they never get it back.

Naaaaahhhh... Enough folks using 3" buck ought to do it!! Down it, take a pic of it with a sign saying something about weird pigeons, and it's all good!

 

[HavokCycle]

there's more here than meets the eye. original thread as i mentioned
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._of_the_sky_for_the_4th_time.html#post3516729

 

[dirtdigger]

I'm not a fan of hunting camps, but that is a separate topic of conversation.
Not sure of the laws out east, but if this was to happen in Indiana, is there anything to investigate? These people admit they are spying.
Is the airspace, over private property, to some extent private? Especially to other private parties?
I guess we need signs now, posting "No Ariel Trespassing".
Thoughts on this?

Flying Camera From Animal Rights Group Shot Down at Pigeon Shoot | NBC 10 Philadelphia

 

[Stang51d]

While I don't agree with this "shark" crap at all, there really isn't any such thing as areal trespassing. Stalking maybe, but the only way that anything is restricted from flying over a certain area is by making it a restricted airspace. Then nothing can fly over it, like a certain part of Crane where they demo old ordinance. It's not unlike a certain ex-wife that is always calling the cops on her ex-husband (who is a pilot) for flying over her house. This while she chose to buy a house right next to the airport and directly under the downwind leg of the traffic pattern. On the other hand, anything that is sent out with the intent to spy, harass, take pics of people and has no other purpose, is harassment, and an invasion of privacy.

 

[DemolitionMan]

Them flyin' machines is good eats. Just gotta slow roast 'em till they're not so chewy.

Seriously, though, I think this group got what it deserved. IANAL but it sure seems to me that if you do something like this over private property you don't have much right to get upset if it gets destroyed.

 

[jve153]

If someone was spy in on me at my house with one of those, I would shoot it down as well

 

[LarryC]

I think the group shooting should put $5 apiece in the hat, first one to shoot a camera down gets 90% of the pot. The other 10% goes to the guy that finishes it off. HeXX, I'd throw $5 in just to see it, shouldn't be to hard to hit - course be better if you used 3 1/2" magnums with double ought.

 

[LarryC]

If someone was spy in on me at my house with one of those, I would shoot it down as well

Me too, good targets are expensive - always take advantage of free ones!

 

[DocGlock86]

I love how they set up their acronym. LOL I guess SHARK sounded cooler than SARK.

 

[Classic]

Maybe they just misidentified the spyplane as a pigeon. That would be my story.

 

[chezuki]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...one_shot_out_of_the_sky_for_the_4th_time.html

 

[HoughMade]

Awwww.....their pretty toy got shot where people are shooting....at things in the air. Glad to hear that they've ended all the hunger, child abuse and neglect such that they have time to devote to saving the sky rats.

 

[eldirector]

At first pass, this would appear to be trespassing by the RC operator. In Indiana, the land owner "owns" the space above their property, with certain rules:

Indiana Code 8-21-4

IC 8-21-4-3
Ownership of air space
Sec. 3. The ownership of the space above the lands and waters of this state is declared to be vested in the several owners of the surface beneath, subject to the right of flight described in section 4 of this chapter.
(Formerly: Acts 1927, c.43, s.3.) As amended by P.L.66-1984, SEC.142.

So, if someone is "flying" below the minimum altitude (500' IIRC) then they are on your property. It would be the same as if they were driving a little RC car on the ground.

 

[squidvt]

At first pass, this would appear to be trespassing by the RC operator. In Indiana, the land owner "owns" the space above their property, with certain rules:

Indiana Code 8-21-4



So, if someone is "flying" below the minimum altitude (500' IIRC) then they are on your property. It would be the same as if they were driving a little RC car on the ground.

I was wondering if IN had "air" rights. Personally if I found something like this over my property.. it would not be going home.