Destroying Other Peoples' Property Now Legal!

Written by Andre Louis-Ferdinand

As some of you have heard, a judge in Kentucky has dismissed all charges against a man that has shot down a drone. The defendant, William Merideth, said the operator was violating his privacy and spying on his family, even though the drone operator provided evidence to the contrary. Hillview police arrested Merideth for firing his gun within city limits and charged him with wanton endangerment.

One "defense" of Merideth's actions was the claim that the drone was spying on him. We need to realize and remember that the drone operator is not on trial here. Merideth was not changed with "drone murder." He was charged with firing a firearm within city limits and endangerment, but should have also been charged with destruction of property. During Monday's hearing, the drone operator, David Boggs, testified and demonstrated that the flight data showed the drone was flying much higher than Meredith stated. However, Judge Rebecca Ward says that since at least two witnesses could see the drone below the tree line, it was an invasion of privacy regardless of the verifiable evidence.

So what does this mean exactly? Essentially, it is now legal to destroy someone's expensive property simply by saying that you felt that it was "spying" on you regardless of the evidence. What is next? Are we now allowed to shoot our neighbor's Lexus because it has a rear-view backup camera that is possibly spying on you? The judge stated, "He had a right to shoot at this drone, and I'm gonna dismiss this charge." The judge said this even though Boggs presented flight data from the drone showing that it had flown nearly 200 feet above Meredith's property.

To me, this demonstrates the irrational fear of UAS (Unmanned Aircraft Systems) that resides within the general public. Legal systems, quite frankly, are just pandering to it at this point. In no way does this ruling make any sense, nor will it likely stand up in a higher court. David Boggs says he is currently considering his options to take this further and we, here at Digital Aviators, really hope he does and would support his decision to do so. Having physical evidence and proving that the eye witness accounts are incorrect, would work in any other case. The fact that it didn't in this case is suspect to say the very least...