Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Only? (Score 1) 664

you are just trying to justify that the drone operator was correct on assumptions when this happened, you know now by the video of what the drone saw, but the thing is that you need to know this things when this was happening, not after

Are you saying shoot first, ask questions later?

If the guy didn't like the drone flying over his property he could have just talked to the operator. If he had real reason to think it was filming his daughters (presuming they are underaged), he should have contacted the police. Getting out your gun at the first sign something might be amiss isn't the way to handle things in a society of justice and laws.

Comment Re:But Republicans are for market forces... (Score 1) 319

The problem is to get line to your property, they must run wires through property you don't own and likely will have to dig up city streets. I agree it should be much easier for companies to get approval to do this, but you're making it sound like it's only your property that comes into play.

Comment Re:Only? (Score 1) 664

So you'd destroy someone's property on the chance that they might be recording you? Do you ask everyone who approaches you to put away their cellphones? Sheesh.

The drone operator in this case did nothing wrong. The drone was way too high to be filming the shooter and his family. It's pretty clear it stopped over the guy's property to re-orient, and the video didn't show any humans at all as the camera wasn't facing down. I could understand the guy shooting it down if it stayed there for a long period of time and/or was flying at a much lower height where it was obvious it was trying to film the family, but that wasn't the case here.

Is your job running? You'd better go catch it!