186
72-year-old Florida man arrested after admitting he shot a Walmart delivery drone
(www.techspot.com)
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
186 points (98.9% liked)
Weird News - Things that make you go 'hmmm'
903 readers
32 users here now
Rules:
-
News must be from a reliable source. No tabloids or sensationalism, please.
-
Try to keep it safe for work. Contact a moderator before posting if you have any doubts.
-
Titles of articles must remain unchanged; however extraneous information like "Watch:" or "Look:" can be removed. Titles with trailing, non-relevant information can also be edited so long as the headline's intent remains intact.
-
Be nice. If you've got nothing positive to say, don't say it.
Violators will be banned at mod's discretion.
Communities We Like:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Shooting at a drone has the same classification as shooting at a passenger plane. He's been charged with a felony, up to 20 years in prison. As it should be. We don't need fucking idiots shooting into the sky in residential areas, regardless of what they think they're shooting at.
You think someone shooting a drone -- a thing that by definition doesn't have any people in it -- should have the same law and sentencing applied as shooting a plane full of people? That seems pretty different to me.
You think a 54 lb drone crashing from the sky isn't potentially deadly to people?
Or bullets falling from the sky.
Oh absolutely it can be. I think most people shooting at a drone aren't intending to hurt anyone, and the possibility of anyone being seriously hurt is largely dependent on how populated the area is if the drone crashes.
Shooting at an occupied aircraft though? The likelihood that someone could be killed goes way up, right? The intent has probably also changed: for a drone it's property destruction, for occupied aircraft it's most likely murder.
Some people believe that intent doesn't matter and that it's the results of the crime that matter. I don't subscribe to that reasoning because then the sentencing of a crime focuses on punishment instead of rehabilitation, and I think intent should have influence on if and how we rehabilitate people, but that's getting into a whole different discussion.
I'm not familiar with drone laws in the US, but in Canada (and from what I'm understanding from the article and other people's comments) drones are regulated by the federal government and also classify drones in the same way as airplanes. To be able to be a certified drone pilot you also need to know a lot about piloting an aircraft and we get some training in that regard to be able to be certified to fly drones. How we are supposed to fly a drone is similar to flying a plane in some respects, and we need to know how planes with people in them stay in the air. Don't get me wrong, we are not "real pilots" in any way, shape, or form, but we're flying in the same airspace as real planes full of real people. If we fuck up a flight - there can be very serious consequences for a drone pilot. Revoking our pilot certification, hefty fines, and even jail time.
On the surface of things, it might just look like property damage of a drone, but, as people have said elsewhere, we can't have people shooting drones out if the air when they feel like it - this could set a dangerous precedent where simple "property damage" of a drone could cause harm or even kill someone, or many people.
Yup. Because whether there are people or not, I don't think, is actually relevant to the crime being committed.
I also think attempted murder, and successful murder should have the same sentence. Whether it was successful shouldn't matter for the punishment. They shouldn't get off with a lighter sentence just because they did a shit job, or because the person was too tough to die.