Drone Problems

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
R

Rudimental

Guest
#2
Camera drones with microphones and speakers on them.
 
V

Viligant_Warrior

Guest
#3
Two teenaged girls sunbathing in their own backyard are not legitimate visual prey for a legally operated drone, so obviously these clowns with their $1,800 weren't "flying it to a neighbor's house," they were being remote-control voyeurs.

They peeked under the neighbor's canopy, probably rotated the camera on the drone, and spotted the girl next door, and decided to spy. They were operating the drone for the express purpose of invading someone's privacy.

I'd shoot the thing down myself, and they can lump the $1,800. Don't want to lose your expensive drone, don't fly it into a backyard looking at a sunbathing teenaged girl with an armed father.
 

blue_ladybug

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2014
70,869
9,601
113
#4
If 4 men claimed the drone cost $1800, you can bet it's a government/ NSA drone.. :/
 
W

WoundedWarrior

Guest
#6
We're gonna need EMP guns.
 
V

Viligant_Warrior

Guest
#7
We're gonna need EMP guns.
Yeah, the only trick is to figure out how to fire one without frying our own HDTV, DVR, computers, cell phones, tablets, automotive electronics ...

Sheesh! Is there anything not electronic anymore? EMP would even fry our coffee pots, for cryin' out loud!
 

Billyd

Senior Member
May 8, 2014
5,051
1,492
113
#8
Can you imagine one of these things delivering an explosive device to a sports stadium on game day, or an outdoor political event?
 
R

Rudimental

Guest
#9
Two teenaged girls sunbathing in their own backyard are not legitimate visual prey for a legally operated drone, so obviously these clowns with their $1,800 weren't "flying it to a neighbor's house," they were being remote-control voyeurs.

They peeked under the neighbor's canopy, probably rotated the camera on the drone, and spotted the girl next door, and decided to spy. They were operating the drone for the express purpose of invading someone's privacy.

I'd shoot the thing down myself, and they can lump the $1,800. Don't want to lose your expensive drone, don't fly it into a backyard looking at a sunbathing teenaged girl with an armed father.
But that's not what actually happened. They weren't using the drone to be voyeurs. And they didnt "peek" under any canopy.

The drone pilot has since come forward with his own version of events and he can back it up with his flight data recorded on his iPad that shows that his drone didn't even go down lower than 10 feet.

These were young kids playing around with a drone! Not some old man peeking on people!

It hardly merits getting out your shotgun and shooting down the drone.

I'm glad he was arrested and charged with wanton endangerment and criminal mischief.

You can't just go around shooting things out of the sky because you feel like it!

UPDATE: Drone owner disputes shooter's story; produces video he - WDRB 41 Louisville News
 
V

Viligant_Warrior

Guest
#11
But that's not what actually happened. They weren't using the drone to be voyeurs. And they didnt "peek" under any canopy.
Really? Try reading your own article again, specifically this:

"We are right now one minute, 56 seconds over the drone slayer's house. We're still not on his property line -- we're just now getting ready to cross it....In less than two seconds...we are outside of his property, still at 272 feet. He shot the drone here, and you'll see it rapidly lose altitude, and the drone crash. Boom -- there it goes."
Perhaps you or the drone owner can explain how he can be over the "drone slayer's house" and yet not cross his property line? Also, other video shows the drone much lower than his stated 272 feet. At that altitude, it would barely be a speck on the original video.

The man's daughters complained the drone was spying on them. His wife said the drone was over their house. You can believe the drone driver if you want, I don't think he's telling the truth, but I do believe Bill Meredith.
 
Last edited:
R

Rudimental

Guest
#12
Really? Try reading your own article again, specifically this:

Perhaps you or the drone owner can explain how he can be over the "drone slayer's house" and yet not cross his property line? Also, other video shows the drone much lower than his stated 272 feet. At that altitude, it would barely be a speck on the original video.

The man's daughters complained the drone was spying on them. His wife said the drone was over their house. You can believe the drone driver if you want, I don't think he's telling the truth, but I do believe Bill Meredith.
Right, but like I said, this wasn't some old man using a drone to spy on those kids, this was just kids playing around with a drone and a trigger happy shotgun wielding father who thinks he can shoot things out of the sky just because its hovering over his house. Its crazy acting on Meridith's behalf.

You can't just shoot things out of the sky because they are hovering over your house and then not expect to get in trouble for that.
 
W

WoundedWarrior

Guest
#13
But that's not what actually happened. They weren't using the drone to be voyeurs. And they didnt "peek" under any canopy.

The drone pilot has since come forward with his own version of events and he can back it up with his flight data recorded on his iPad that shows that his drone didn't even go down lower than 10 feet.

These were young kids playing around with a drone! Not some old man peeking on people!

It hardly merits getting out your shotgun and shooting down the drone.

I'm glad he was arrested and charged with wanton endangerment and criminal mischief.

You can't just go around shooting things out of the sky because you feel like it!

UPDATE: Drone owner disputes shooter's story; produces video he - WDRB 41 Louisville News

I suspected something like this... GO "NEWS" MEDIA!

Thanks for sharing. :)
 
W

WoundedWarrior

Guest
#14
Really? Try reading your own article again, specifically this:

Perhaps you or the drone owner can explain how he can be over the "drone slayer's house" and yet not cross his property line? Also, other video shows the drone much lower than his stated 272 feet. At that altitude, it would barely be a speck on the original video.

The man's daughters complained the drone was spying on them. His wife said the drone was over their house. You can believe the drone driver if you want, I don't think he's telling the truth, but I do believe Bill Meredith.

Oh boy, so there's still controversy over whether or not the drone was spying over this guy's property?

Regardless, it's probably not a good idea to operate your drone near someone else's place of residence without permission.
I probably would have done the same thing -- ker-pow!
 
W

WoundedWarrior

Guest
#15
You can't just shoot things out of the sky because they are hovering over your house and then not expect to get in trouble for that.
Unless you fear for your life?
 
V

Viligant_Warrior

Guest
#16
Right, but like I said, this wasn't some old man using a drone to spy on those kids, this was just kids playing around with a drone and a trigger happy shotgun wielding father who thinks he can shoot things out of the sky just because its hovering over his house. Its crazy acting on Meridith's behalf.
I checked your profile. You're not married. I'm assuming that also means you don't have kids. Let me to explain this to you, as a husband and father.

If there is a neighbor mowing his yard, whether 16 or 60, stopping and peeking over my fence and staring at my sunbathing, bikini-clad daughter -- or my sunbathing, bikini-clad wife, for that matter (and for her, even more so) -- I'm going to put a stop to it. The use of a drone to do the leering is no different, and you can excuse this idiot with his $1,800 drone all you want, he was using his toy to get an eyeful of an underage young woman in HD, and that's all he was doing.

You call it "innocent fun"? I call it being a pervert. If she goes to the beach dressed like that, it's different -- which is why my wife or my daughter never went to the swimming pool or any other public venue dressed in one. This, however, is in Meredith's own back yard, where the daughters have a reasonable expectation of privacy, one the guy with the spy in the sky willfully and knowingly violated.

He got caught and he's trying to shift the blame and refuse responsibility. Just like every other sinner in the world.

You can't just shoot things out of the sky because they are hovering over your house and then not expect to get in trouble for that.
If I can rebuke and, if necessary, physically restrain the neighbor being a peeping Tom -- and I can -- you darn betcha I can put a stop to "drone peeping" anyway necessary. When you're married and have kids, maybe you'll get a better grasp of that reality.
 
H

Hellooo

Guest
#17
I'd pop off at a drone in my yard too, I don't think his reaction was unreasonable.
 
R

Rudimental

Guest
#18
I checked your profile. You're not married. I'm assuming that also means you don't have kids. Let me to explain this to you, as a husband and father.

If there is a neighbor mowing his yard, whether 16 or 60, stopping and peeking over my fence and staring at my sunbathing, bikini-clad daughter -- or my sunbathing, bikini-clad wife, for that matter (and for her, even more so) -- I'm going to put a stop to it. The use of a drone to do the leering is no different, and you can excuse this idiot with his $1,800 drone all you want, he was using his toy to get an eyeful of an underage young woman in HD, and that's all he was doing.

You call it "innocent fun"? I call it being a pervert. If she goes to the beach dressed like that, it's different -- which is why my wife or my daughter never went to the swimming pool or any other public venue dressed in one. This, however, is in Meredith's own back yard, where the daughters have a reasonable expectation of privacy, one the guy with the spy in the sky willfully and knowingly violated.

He got caught and he's trying to shift the blame and refuse responsibility. Just like every other sinner in the world.

If I can rebuke and, if necessary, physically restrain the neighbor being a peeping Tom -- and I can -- you darn betcha I can put a stop to "drone peeping" anyway necessary. When you're married and have kids, maybe you'll get a better grasp of that reality.
I thoroughly agree. But was he actually doing that though? Was he actually being a peeping tom? Or was he just flying his camera drone a bit too close to a neighbors garden? I think we should not point the finger at people and accuse them of things unless we know and have the full facts.
 
V

Viligant_Warrior

Guest
#19
I thoroughly agree. But was he actually doing that though? Was he actually being a peeping tom? Or was he just flying his camera drone a bit too close to a neighbors garden? I think we should not point the finger at people and accuse them of things unless we know and have the full facts.
Speaking of "not pointing the finger," have you not pointed your finger at Meredith, based solely on the "evidence" provided by the man he says was spying on his sunbathing daughter?

For that matter, Meredith's entire family and two of his neighbors say the drone was spying on his daughter. The only one who says he wasn't spying on the girl is the drone pilot, and even he slipped up, contradicting himself by saying his drone was "over the drone slayer's house" when he was trying to prove through drone video that he was not. His testimony is not reliable.
 
R

Rudimental

Guest
#20
No, I don't think I have. I'm sorry if thats a bitter pill to swallow for you but I stand by what I said, you need to have the full facts first before you point fingers of blame at people.

Flying over someones house with a camera drone does not mean you are using that camera drone to spy on the people in that house. It was unfortunate for the drone pilot that Meredith had his kids in the garden at the time but there are other ways of going about things rather than resorting to violence with a shotgun which could have put other people at risk and injured them because he thought he could take the law into his own hands.

Of course they would say that the drone was spying on them. That makes it sort of alright by their standards to back up their fathers response and action. But was it really? Was it? Or was it just flying too close to his house/garden.

We don't know the full facts. One thing I do know is that you do NOT have the right to blast things out of the sky just for hovering above your house/garden.

Do you know how much noise drones make? That's why they are no good at weddings yet. They simply make too much noise what with the props spinning. I own a small minidrone, a Parrot Rolling Spider. Its only small but is very loud and can easily be heard. How much more noise do you think a larger camera drone makes? A lot I can tell you! It's almost as loud as a drill. Do you really think the drone pilot thought he could get away with spying on his neighbors without getting caught out from the noise the props make? Come on.

This was not a perverted old man, this was a young inexperienced drone pilot and an over zealous, trigger happy father, who (to be fair to him) acted like any father that wants to protect their kids honor would act. But what he should have done is took pictures or even recorded video of the drone and reported it to the police. Not pulled out his shotgun and blast it from the sky which could have landed on someone and seriously injured them. But was he thinking clear when he done that? Was he thinking about the repercussions of his actions? I don't think he was.