After Shooting Drone, California Man Loses in Court,

A California man has been ordered to pay $850 in repair costs after his son shot a quadcopter drone out of the sky, in a case demonstrating the ramifications of destroying a drone.

> I was flying over my parents’ walnut farm in Modesto, California, a really rural area. I was up in the air for maybe five minutes before I heard a shot,” the [**drone owner told VICE**](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-skys-not-your-lawn-man-wins-lawsuit-after-neighbor-shotgunned-his-drone). “According to my flight data, it wasn’t going very fast or anything, but it just flipped upside down and crashed.”
> The owner said he approached his neighbor, Brett McBay, whose son was holding a shotgun.”I yelled over to them and said, ‘Did you shoot that drone?’ and they said ‘Did we get it?’”

The drone owner said McBay originally agreed to pay for the drone, leading to the email exchange below.

![](https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/maven-user-photos/pinacnews/courtroom-files/JzLVvQRe6EGjGzL_-KdqjQ/duIjlB6VWkuTHvXExtwjFw)

![](https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/maven-user-photos/pinacnews/courtroom-files/JzLVvQRe6EGjGzL_-KdqjQ/SeymGblnQkGxJy0zpTr3LA)

![](https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/maven-user-photos/pinacnews/courtroom-files/JzLVvQRe6EGjGzL_-KdqjQ/mADEfOw1i0mtMqP1c6SkzA)

According to the drone owner, he only flew the drone over his own property, though that did not seem to matter to the judge.

The judge in the case used the emails as evidence that McBay admitted to his son shooting the drone and ordered McBay to pay the owner. This judgment is now a minor landmark in establishing that a drone cannot be destroyed simply because it flew over private property.

“Even though it’s from small claims court, it supports the proposition that destruction of someone’s property is not an appropriate way to respond to the presence of a drone,” attorney and drone law expert Brendan Schulman told VICE’s Jason Koebler. “Even if a drone is causing a nuisance, potentially invading privacy, creating a hazard, or violating some other law, the appropriate way to respond is to call the authorities, not to take self-help measures involving firearms. Notably, the verdict states that the discharge of the firearm was unreasonable regardless of whether the drone was being flown over the shooter’s property. I think this case is more about the response to the drone operation than it is an indication of what laws apply to the operation of the drone itself.”

Last year, a [**New Jersey man**](http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/09/30/new-jersey-man-accused-of-shooting-down-neighbors-remote-control-drone/) was arrested for shooting a drone out of the sky. That same year, a Colorado man tried to introduce a bill that would have made it legal in his town to shoot down drones, but it [**did not pass**](http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-drone-hunting-law-rejected-colorado20140402-story.html) when the FAA informed residents that it would still be a crime.

- Advertisement -

A California man has been ordered to pay $850 in repair costs after his son shot a quadcopter drone out of the sky, in a case demonstrating the ramifications of destroying a drone.

> I was flying over my parents’ walnut farm in Modesto, California, a really rural area. I was up in the air for maybe five minutes before I heard a shot,” the [**drone owner told VICE**](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-skys-not-your-lawn-man-wins-lawsuit-after-neighbor-shotgunned-his-drone). “According to my flight data, it wasn’t going very fast or anything, but it just flipped upside down and crashed.”
> The owner said he approached his neighbor, Brett McBay, whose son was holding a shotgun.”I yelled over to them and said, ‘Did you shoot that drone?’ and they said ‘Did we get it?’”

The drone owner said McBay originally agreed to pay for the drone, leading to the email exchange below.

![](https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/maven-user-photos/pinacnews/courtroom-files/JzLVvQRe6EGjGzL_-KdqjQ/duIjlB6VWkuTHvXExtwjFw)

![](https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/maven-user-photos/pinacnews/courtroom-files/JzLVvQRe6EGjGzL_-KdqjQ/SeymGblnQkGxJy0zpTr3LA)

![](https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/maven-user-photos/pinacnews/courtroom-files/JzLVvQRe6EGjGzL_-KdqjQ/mADEfOw1i0mtMqP1c6SkzA)

According to the drone owner, he only flew the drone over his own property, though that did not seem to matter to the judge.

The judge in the case used the emails as evidence that McBay admitted to his son shooting the drone and ordered McBay to pay the owner. This judgment is now a minor landmark in establishing that a drone cannot be destroyed simply because it flew over private property.

“Even though it’s from small claims court, it supports the proposition that destruction of someone’s property is not an appropriate way to respond to the presence of a drone,” attorney and drone law expert Brendan Schulman told VICE’s Jason Koebler. “Even if a drone is causing a nuisance, potentially invading privacy, creating a hazard, or violating some other law, the appropriate way to respond is to call the authorities, not to take self-help measures involving firearms. Notably, the verdict states that the discharge of the firearm was unreasonable regardless of whether the drone was being flown over the shooter’s property. I think this case is more about the response to the drone operation than it is an indication of what laws apply to the operation of the drone itself.”

Last year, a [**New Jersey man**](http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/09/30/new-jersey-man-accused-of-shooting-down-neighbors-remote-control-drone/) was arrested for shooting a drone out of the sky. That same year, a Colorado man tried to introduce a bill that would have made it legal in his town to shoot down drones, but it [**did not pass**](http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-drone-hunting-law-rejected-colorado20140402-story.html) when the FAA informed residents that it would still be a crime.

- Advertisement -

Support our Mission

Help us build a database of bad cops

For almost 15 years, PINAC News has remained active despite continuous efforts by the government and Big Tech to shut us down by either arresting us for lawful activity or by restricting access to our readers under the pretense that we write about “social issues.”

Since we are forbidden from discussing social issues on social media, we have created forums on our site to allow us to fulfill our mission with as little restriction as possible. We welcome our readers to join our forums and support our mission by either donating, volunteering or both.

Our plan is to build a national database of bad cops obtained from public records maintained by local prosecutors. The goal is to teach our readers how to obtain these lists to ensure we cover every city, county and state in the country.

After all, the government has made it clear it will not police the police so the role falls upon us.

It will be our most ambitious project yet but it can only be done with your help.

But if we succeed, we will be able to keep innocent people out of prison.

Please make a donation below or click on side tab to learn more about our mission.

Subscribe to PINAC

Bypass Big Tech censorship.

Leave a Reply

- Advertisement -

Latest articles