CA company files charges against man for using his t-shirt to swat their $1350 drone to the ground

[Miles Archer]

There is also a video at the URL below.

A California drone company has filed a police report against a Huntington Beach man after he used his T-shirt to swat a $1,350 drone to the ground.

Video shot by Mike Luzanksy, who owns Lucky 7 Drones, shows the DJI Phantom 3 drone hovering a few feet in the air in the middle of a street when a shirtless man appears.

The man tells Luzanksy not to fly the drone near his house and proceeds to smack it from the sky with his shirt, sending it crashing to the ground.

Luzanksy said if the man doesn't pay for the damaged drone, he'll sue in small claims court.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/06/09/video-california-man-swats-drone-out-air-his-t-shirt

[Orrex]

1. Sounds like the shirt hit the fan.

[valerief]

3. Boom! Good one!

[gopiscrap]

12. Best quote of the day!!!

[Jesus Malverde]

14. .

😆

[Initech]

82. /thread

[Liberal_in_LA]

100. lol

[vanlassie]

132. OMG!!

[drm604]

2. From the video, it doesn't look like this guy had any right to do that.

It's not like it was an anonymous drone on his property. It was in a public street and the guy piloting it was standing right there. I question whether it should be flown in a public street like that, but that would be a matter for law enforcement if it's a problem.

[valerief]

4. I wonder if the shirt guy has as much of a right to cross the street and beat off the drone. nt

[drm604]

7. Right. He should have called the police about it.

This is vigilantism.

[petronius]

18. I agree - I expected to see something at least arguably intrusive from the drone,

but that was very innocuous. No matter how annoying, ShirtMan doesn't have the right to walk up and smash someone's property.

There need to be rules around drone use protecting privacy and safety, but I'd say that what these operators were doing was OK...

[notadmblnd]

101. my son has an RC helicopter. On occasion it gets out in the street

But he's more than likely to crash it on the roof of our house or in someone's back yard. It doesn't have a camera and it's just a hobby. He has RC cars too. When people refer to them as drones instead of RC toys- I can't help but wonder why? The word "drone" does sound much scarier than RC toy, doesn't it?

[Fumesucker]

5. Quadrotors are dangerous, I wouldn't want anyone flying one near me

If the drone was close enough for someone to swat it with their tee shirt it was way too close to a human.

Here's some images of injuries sustained by people from quadrotors..

Scroll down to see the images since they are graphic.

[Codeine]

8. I cut my back pretty good with mine.

Turns out that Mode 2 high-performance setting really isn't for novices!

[Fumesucker]

13. I had a little one that weighed an ounce or so

Made me realize I didn't want a bigger one, too unstable and too much chance of severe consequences.

I'm a pretty good RC fixed wing pilot, quads are a whole different ball of wax.

[drm604]

11. They should have rotor guards.

I have a very small one (I can hold it in the palm of my hand) that was a Christmas gift. I added a rotor guard before attempting to fly it, for that very reason.

They certainly shouldn't have been flying it in the middle of a public street.

[Codeine]

15. I took the guards off mine,

because they add a lot of weight, impact battery life, and make the rig less stable in a breeze. I imagine most hobbyists end up making the same observation.

[drm604]

17. That may be why mine is difficult to fly.

I fly it inside (it's designed for this) and I can't get a stable hover. I assumed it was because it was small and cheap. As unstable as it is, I hesitate to fly it without the guard.

Even if there wasn't a safety issue, landings are invariably rough and it bounces around. Without the guard I'd probably have damaged the props by now.

[Codeine]

20. The little ones are bulletproof.

I've banged small ones off the walls, my head, the tv, my six-year-old (not my finest parenting moment) and several pieces of Ikea's finest with no ill effects.

That said, indoor stability in a small area can be a real bear -- the props move a lot of air and indoors that air starts bouncing off the walls and furniture and family members and creates all manner of turbulence. The quad ends up creating and environment where it can't be stable all by itself.

Have you calibrated your flyer? It should have gyros that help hold it steady; look up the calibration procedure for your model and see if that helps.

[drm604]

53. Yes, I've calibrated it.

I've suspected the air turbulence problem. There's a calibration sequence at the start involving moving a stick around (I don't recall the exact process at the moment). It took me a while to even get the controller talking to the flyer. The instructions aren't the best, but I've found some good online resources.

Like you, I've banged it off walls, etc. Have you banged them around without a prop guard? I'd be concerned about breaking the props, cutting someone, or getting tangled in someone's hair.

There's a big field across the street from me. I might try it there. It's behind a school, but the school year is just about over and I wouldn't do it if anyone was playing there. I wonder how much a little one like mine would be affected by wind.

[Codeine]

57. Plenty of crashes without the guard.

They're tougher than they look. My outdoor one has had some hair-raising impacts without incident.

[Fumesucker]

21. The problem with flying indoors is the quad makes air currents which then disturb the hover

A big room helps, I learned to hover mine over the bed and just chopped the throttle and let if flop to the mattress every time it started to wander.

A simulator is a good thing for learning to fly also, do all your inevitable early crashing in the computer.

http://home.wlu.edu/~levys/software/pyquadsim/

[drm604]

59. The problem with a software simulator

is that flying with a keyboard is not equivalent to flying with joysticks. I doubt that whatever I learned would transfer well to using an actual transmitter.

Still I may try it. Thanks.

[Fumesucker]

62. There are joysticks available for the PC and there are adapters to allow a transmiiter too..

It's more a matter of orientation, I started flying a quad after a lot of stick time on fixed wing and still had difficulty with orienting the aircraft.

As soon as you get any distance away orientation becomes even more difficult, making sure you can tell the front of your aircraft from the rear is critical.

[gcomeau]

23. He was close enough to swat it because he walked over TO swat it.

The drone wasn't flown near him, he deliberately approached it.

[Fumesucker]

25. The pilot could and should have steered it away from him

It is the responsibility of the pilot to operate the drone in a safe manner, allowing it to be approached that closely was an error on the part of the pilot.

[gcomeau]

26. And since the guy was intent on approaching it...

Should he just have been chased all over the place as the guy kept following it around?


Sorry, one of those parties had *intent* to make contact with that drone, they're the ones to blame.

[Fumesucker]

30. Twenty feet in the air and it would have been out of tee shirt range

I've flown a lot of RC aircraft including quadrotors, I had RC specific insurance and flew at a designated site with safety rules including transmitter sequestration if you aren't actively flying.

Operating a flying veg o matic in public is a hazard, which is why the Amazon "drone delivery" plan is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

[gcomeau]

32. Bottom line, there was an attacker and an attacked

I am not going to blame the attacked for not taking quick enough action to avoid the attacker.

Driving a car in public is a hazard too, and it's the vehicle operators responsibility to do so safely. Which doesn't make it their fault if someone runs up and *deliberately* jumps on the hood of their car while they're making their way through the parking lot or something.

[Human101948]

63. so if I am about to run my lawnmower over your foot and...

you push me out of the way, who is to blame?

C'mon now. These things are a public nuisance and apparently can cause very serious damage to people. Take your dumbass toy and fly it out in cowfield faraway from public spaces.

[gcomeau]

79. Nobody was about to get "run over".

Nobody was being threatened. Nobody's safety was at risk. The guy didn't run up to save anyone from being attacked by a drone. He just wanted it to not be flying anywhere near his house so he attacked it.


Some jackass's general irritation with the concept of a drone being anywhere in the vicinity of his property doesn't constitute justification for the destruction of other people's property.

[petronius]

36. Before the smack, the drone was moving away... (nt)

[Fumesucker]

38. Not fast enough or far enough

As I said, twenty feet in the air and it would have been out of range of a tee shirt swat.

Aircraft operate in three dimensions, humans in only two.

[petronius]

44. IMO, you are applying an unreasonable standard for the public sphere

The onus to avoid willful destruction of property should not be entirely (or mostly, or arguably at all) on the shoulders of the owner of the property.

Any actual risk to this man was created by him approaching the drone, and the drone was moving away quickly enough to eliminate that risk. The fact that it didn't move away quickly enough to prevent his destroying it is not a fault of the operator, nor evidence of unsafe behavior by the operator...

[Fumesucker]

51. I'm an actual RC pilot, I would have kept the thing far away from the man as a matter of course

The quadrotor in question is unstable, highly maneuverable and big enough to be deadly in the wrong circumstances, a flying veg o matic.

These things are very attractive to children who will sometimes move to grab them in flight, what if it had been a child who was injured or even killed by the drone?

If it was in range of a tee shirt it was far too close.

[avebury]

56. And what if the drone was flown low enough to catch

the attention of children who, attracted by it, attempted to interact with it and are harmed?

Anybody operating a drone needs to use some common sense.

[petronius]

60. What if? It wasn't a child - and we have no way of knowing what the operator would

have done differently if it had been a child, golden retriever, sea gull, yeti, whatever. Hypotheticals can be interesting, but they don't replace the reality, and the reality of this specific case is that there's nothing in the video to suggest that the drone operator was irresponsible, and plenty to suggest that ShirtMan was.

I agree with you about using common sense--in any activity one chooses to engage in in public--but I'm not willing to put the blame on the owner of property when another person takes deliberate actions to destroy that property.

In this case, my verdict is that ShirtMan is in the wrong...

[LanternWaste]

37. Much as car on the street being closely approached by a pedestrian is an error...

Much as car on the street being closely approached by a pedestrian is an error and irresponsible on the part of a driver? Or are these small drones much more dangerous than SUVs and should be reacted to with different standards...?

[Fumesucker]

41. I don't know about you but if I see a pedestrian about to step in the road I take evasive action

I take it before they actually step in the road because I'm operating something that can injure or kill the pedestrian.

If the damn thing had been flying at twenty feet altitude it would have been completely out of range of a tee shirt swat.

[Logical]

71. Lol, nope! You are way wrong on this topic. Nt

[Logical]

66. It wasnt close to him until we walked over to it! wow, watch the video! Nt

[Fumesucker]

67. You might try reading the thread, I've already responded to that point

[Xithras]

108. Yes, and people have been killed by kids riding bicycles in the street. So what?

People use the public streets to do all sorts of things that are potentially risky for themselves or others. If you want to prohibit all public use of the roadways that potentially puts other people at risk of injury, let's add a few other "dangerous" activities to that list:

-Bike riding
-Skateboarding
-Kite flying
-Scooter riding
-Running
-Dog walking
-Playing basketball
-Playing football
-Playing soccer

All street activities that I've personally seen lead to physical injury on our streets. Any one of these has a higher death and injury toll than quadcopter accidents. And shit, I forgot the biggest culprit of all:

-Driving.

[Fumesucker]

131. Strawman, I said nothing about banning flying drones

Just keep them away from people if you happen to be flying one, they are potentially quite deadly and sooner or later there will be a fatality if there hasn't been already.

I say this as a long time RC flyer of fixed wing planes and a half assed quadrotor pilot myself. If I'm flying in a public place it's *my* responsibility to keep the drone away from contacting anyone. I wouldn't fly a quad of that size in a public place anyway, the likelihood of mishap leading to injury is just too damn high. I have a tiny one that weighs about an ounce you can fly indoors, anything big enough to carry a Gopro like in the OP is too heavy and dangerous for casual flying around the public.

[Ghost in the Machine]

130. I got worse than that from a weed eater last week... I started it up on my front porch and the head

got tangled in a piece of rope on the porch rail. Dumbass me, I didn't shut it off, just sat the engine end down on the porch and started to unwrap the rope. When the rope got a little loose, the head started to move just a little, so I grabbed it with my right hand and held it steady until I got the rope loose. Once the rope was loose, I let go of the head... thinking it was still idling... the motor surged from being held back and before I knew what was happening the strings just about shredded my left forearm.

It was a very painful lesson, but I'll never do that again! If something gets tangled again, turn the damned thing OFF, then untangle it!

Peace,

Ghost

[aikoaiko]

6. If CA had Stand Your Ground laws that shite wouldn't fly

Thank you. I'll be here all night.

Don't forget to tip your waitstaff.

[randome]

9. Oh, you do drone on and on, don't you?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[ManiacJoe]

105. California does have Stand Your Ground laws.

[Snobblevitch]

10. That drone was an imminent danger to both

drivers and pedestrians. I hope the jidge throws the case out and orders the drone company to pay all court costs.

[MohRokTah]

16. The Drone should be considered a nuisance under city ordinances.

I hope the judge throws the lawsuit out.

[Romulox]

19. A) I wouldn't pay a dime; B) I'd countersue for invasion of privacy; C) I'd take a jury trial

for any criminal charge.

Shirtless man was well within his rights, and if someone began filming "in the public street" in front of my home, I'd consider doing the same.

[Codeine]

22. People have the right to film in public.

He's on a public street. There's no reasonable expectation of privacy on the street.

[Romulox]

24. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in one's home, grounds, and appurtenant buildings.

"People have the right to film in public." presupposes its own premise: namely, that the area in front of a person's home is "public", and that sightlines from such "public" places are therefore also fair game.

[Codeine]

27. I'm pretty sure that legally that is public.

I could be wrong.

[Romulox]

28. As I mentioned, I'd take the jury trial. nt

[Romulox]

49. As an aside, I had a Blade 450 and a TRex 450, and had to stop flying them because of these camera

creeps.

[Codeine]

58. I admire the skill it takes to fly an RC heli,

but freely admit I possess absolutely nothing like the requisite ability. The quads largely fly themselves once you've acclimated yourself to the controls.

[LanternWaste]

40. A property owner generally cannot restrict the photographing of the property

A property owner generally cannot restrict the photographing of the property by individuals who are not located within the bounds of the property. Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statute or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take photographs. Examples of places that are traditionally considered public are streets, sidewalks, and public parks. Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises but have no right to prohibit others from photographing their property from other locations.

(Legal Handbook for Photographers by Bert Krages)

[Romulox]

42. "Generally" is the operative word. Can I set up a telescope into your bedroom from the sidewalk?

If your answer is "no", (and how could it be otherwise?), then it becomes clear that there is some limiting factor in this so-called "right" to film my home.

[LanternWaste]

45. Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statute or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take

Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statute or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take photographs of private property from a public place.

Hypothetical fictions aside, it's legal barring a specific community prohibition.




"'Generally' is the operative term..."
More accurately, "Absent a specific legal prohibition" is the operative phrase.

[Romulox]

46. No, this is wrong. There is a right to privacy in one's home that supersedes one's right to film. nt

[LanternWaste]

50. No doubt, if you believe as such, you can provide case precedent...

These same situations have already been tested in the courts. Simply saying you don't like it, or that it's wrong doesn't really change that. No doubt, if you believe as such, you can provide case precedent...

If it helps, photographing private property from within the public domain is legal, with the exception of an area that is generally regarded as private, such as a bedroom, bathroom, or hotel room (Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004), however that doesn't address the OP in any relevant manner.

[Romulox]

52. Case precedent to not being prosecuted? Um, you've got it backwards. First you find a charge,

then we'll discover a defense.

[Travis_0004]

54. Finding a charge will be easy. Destruction of property.

[Romulox]

68. For the third (fourth?) time: TRIAL BY JURY. nt

[Travis_0004]

73. I'm not so sure it would help

Does small claims court guarantee the right to trial by jury?

If you destroy somebody's property, then request a trial by jury instead of paying the 1,000 bucks (or letting the small claims court handle it), I would hopefully be able to assign double damages for wasting my time if I was a juror.

[Romulox]

74. Civil and criminal actions are two different things. nt

[Travis_0004]

76. Yes I'm well aware of that fact

Right now, the article is talking about civil actions, in small claims court.

Hopefully the sheriff will get around to filing criminal actions in a few days.

[Romulox]

77. A) and B) in my original post to this thread refer to civil consequences. C) to criminal. nt

[Logical]

65. Nice stretch! This was not close to what you described! Nt

[Romulox]

69. I have no idea to what you refer. Less exclamation marks, more argument, please. nt

[Xithras]

124. California law prohibits photographing a homes "private" areas from the outside.

What this means, in practice:

- Any outdoor area on your property is not private. If it can be seen from off your property, it can be photographed from off your property. This includes your backyard. If your neighbor wants to climb his tree and take pix of your backyard, he can legally do so.

- An enclosed outdoor area on your property cannot be photographed if the pictures will capture someone in any state of undress. Your neighbor can climb his tree and photograph your backyard over your privacy fence every day of the week without breaking the law. But if you're sunbathing nude in your backyard and he takes the photos, he's committed a serious crime. By removing your clothing, you have converted the "public" area of your backyard into a "private" area. Note that this ONLY applies if the backyard is well fenced and you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

- Outdoor shots of your home that happen to catch glimpses into your home are legal, so long as the intent wasn't to photograph the inside of your house. If you have your curtains open as the Google camera car drives by, and the resulting shot of your house shows the inside of your living room, no laws have been broken.

-Photographs that are taken from off your property that are specifically focused through your windows, or are focused on your windows in such a way that capturing the inside of your home is clearly the intent, are illegal. It's actually a felony.

-Photographs taken through a window from anywhere ON your property, without your permission, are always illegal.

[Logical]

64. Nope! But nice try! Nt

[Romulox]

70. Nonsense. Set up a telephoto lens outside a home and test your theory. nt

[Hassin Bin Sober]

125. Umm. Have you heard of paparazzi?

A whole industy exists that blows your silly arguments to smithereens.

[Travis_0004]

34. The drone had no camera

If there was an ivasion it was the camera, so why didnt shirtless man attack the cameraman?

If this drone was flying in somebodys yard, then I wouldnt have a problem with somebody knocking it out of the sky, but this was a public street and the guy had no right to destroy somebodys property, so he should pay. (And put on a shirt)

[Romulox]

35. It clearly had a GoPro attached. Watch again. nt

[Travis_0004]

39. Ok It still doesnt really change anything

He was filming on a public street at about 5 foot high.

A lot of trucks have dashboard cams, by the same logic can we smash those too?

[Romulox]

43. Don't film people in their homes, and we won't have to find out. Do so, and these issues will be

tested in court.

[Logical]

72. A person standing in the street can film the front of your house! Shit, google....

Street view does it all the time! You really are uninformed on this topic.
Comparing a gopro to a telescope is really stupid.

[Romulox]

75. It's not as cut and dry as you assert. You can't film in my bedroom from the street, for example.

Or rather, you can do so, but it may well give rise to a cause of action for invasion of privacy.

Comparing a gopro to a telescope is really stupid.

Nonsense. Both can be caused to film in places where a homeowner should reasonably expect privacy.

[Logical]

80. Lol, you have not thought about this very long i can see. Nt

[Romulox]

84. Wonderful arguments. nt

[snooper2]

134. DON'T FILM ME!

LOL-

I love those YouTube videos

[jberryhill]

81. It was clearly in a public street

That guy who came over and swatted it has no counterclaim for anything here.

[Romulox]

83. Oh, we don't have anything like the facts necessary to know

what counterclaims anybody might have, nor do claims have to be meritorious for suit to be filed.

My broader point is that the flying toy is broken, and if buying the kid a new set of rotors ($25, not $1350, btw) is the price to pay for asserting one's right to be let alone in one's home, it's a price I'm willing to pay.

[jberryhill]

85. lol

"nor do claims have to be meritorious for suit to be filed"

yeah, sure, one can always go for sanctions and fees to be levied against oneself.

The guy walked up on a public street and destroyed their property.

What imaginable facts would give rise to a counterclaim here?

[Romulox]

87. Sanctions in small claims court? LOL rightbackatcha. nt

[jberryhill]

93. Depending on the jurisdiction, yeah

Why not? Are you laughing at me, or the actual California rules of procedure?

http://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=two&linkid=rule2_30

Rule 2.30. Sanctions for rules violations in civil cases

(a) Application

This sanctions rule applies to the rules in the California Rules of Court relating to general civil cases, unlawful detainer cases, probate proceedings, civil proceedings in the appellate division of the superior court, and small claims cases.

[Romulox]

94. Filing a counterclaim for a common law tort by a pro se litigant in a small claims

court is not sanctionable, whether the claim is ultimately successful or not.

This is a dumb rabbit hole, in other words.

[jberryhill]

95. deliberately saying you'd filing a meritless claim is enough

Hypothetically, if you were the person in question, and you had made that statement about claims not needing to have any merit in order to file a claim or counterclaim, that would be all the rope needed.

And, yes, pro se litigants can certainly be, and are, sanctioned.

[Romulox]

96. Good thing I didn't say that, eh? nt

[Logical]

88. "In ones own home"??? You drunk? Nt

[Romulox]

91. Make a good point, and THEN we'll start an argument. The aimless belligerence is boring. nt

[Logical]

104. It never left the street! The idiot came out of his yard and attacked it.....

For no reason. You sound paranoid.
Maybe it was you on the video?

[Bonx]

98. c) I'd vote to convict.

[drm604]

112. So should he also have attacked whoever was filming the incident?

Obviously someone recorded this incident with a camera and was therefore "filming in the public street". Would the man have been within his rights to knock that camera out of that person's hands? Should he or should he not be responsible for any damages he causes by doing so?

Most cellphones have cameras. Do I have the right to knock cellphones out of people's hands in public because they might be recording a video?

[catnhatnh]

29. Well...

...if the guy flying the drone is the owner of the company that makes or sells the drone then everything changes. As owner, every time he touches the controls that flight becomes a commercial flight and there are laws governing their use.

"In short, the proposed rules that have been a decade in the making would limit drones weighing no more than 55 lbs to flying no more than 100 mph at an altitude no higher than 500 feet. The FAA would ban their use at night and near airports. And, they could be operated only by someone with a certification who keeps the vehicle "in line of sight" at all times.

The FAA also will require anyone using Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) for commercial purposes to obtain a special pilot certification to operate them."

[RandiFan1290]

31. Drunk Moron

[Bonx]

99. Apt title. Well done.

[Eleanors38]

33. Well, when dove season opens, better not be a drone overhead: Invasive species.

[frogmarch]

47. the drone wasn't on the asshole's property and

he had no right to smack it down.

[Bonx]

97. Sure he does. Because... drone.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

48. Ugh, fuxsnooze link! nt

[Travis_0004]

55. I think it is a public menance.

That guy walking around with no shirt, I have no problem with the drone.

[Codeine]

61. Ha!

Well played!!

[djean111]

78. If I saw one in my back yard, I would try my damnedest to swat it down. Or take a hose to it.

Do we know that this particular drone had not be flying around the guy's house before it got killed?

[Logical]

89. Do you know it was? Maybe it flew inside his house!! nt

[djean111]

92. That's what I was asking - all we saw was the scene in the street, maybe it was buzzing around his

yard earlier.

[d_r]

86. you all are taking this very seriously

and while I respect that, I am all

[Throd]

103. I'm with Nelson

[Go Vols]

90. nice blue micro-bus

[Gidney N Cloyd]

102. If a drone anywhere got the 'Bluto treatment,' I think I could look the other way.

[Xithras]

106. My son flies quads. That would have ended in physical violence if someone did that to his.

Using the public street for playing and games is perfectly legal. The guy is an asshole.

[Snobblevitch]

109. Out of curiosity,

does your son fly his drone on what appears to be a busy, public street at a low enough level so that it could collide with traffic and pedestrians?

[Xithras]

110. He flies them in front of my house at least once a week.

Legally, using a quad on the street is no different than using any other toy or recreational device on the street. Kids bikes, skateboards, basketball hoops, quads...all can use the street legally so long as they aren't impeding street traffic. Hell, half the kids on my street have RC cars that they drive in the street now and then.

If this guy had walked out and smashed some kids $300 RC car because he didn't believe it should be used in the street, would he have the same defenders here?

[Snobblevitch]

111. As long as he keeps the drone over your property, I have no problem with it.

As soon as he flies it at eye level on the street or sidewalk where it can easily collide with traffic or a pedestrian, then I have a problem. I don't think your son should really use the RC cars in the street. If somebody stomped on it, I guess they would be jerks. If they accidently ran over it with an auto, well, it would be disappointing to your son, but the driver would have no obligation to replace the RC device.

It has been my experience that skateboards and basketball hoops should not be on a public street. Do you really have a basketball hoop set up near the curb so that your son needs to shoot baskets from the street? That does not seem safe or legal.

[Xithras]

113. You don't live in the suburbs, do you?

What kind of weird world do you live in where people don't play in the street? We've got everything from four year olds on bicycles to teenagers playing basketball on my street every single day. The idea that people shouldn't play in public spaces is a bit odd.

And yes, putting a basketball hoop on the street is both common and legal. None of my kids play that particular sport, but we have at least three hoops on my street. So long as you aren't leaving it on the street when you're done with it, and you aren't blocking traffic, no laws are violated.

[Snobblevitch]

114. Actually, we do live in the suburbs.

Our street is busy enough that no parent allows their children to do what is happening in your neighborhood. I hope no child is hit with an automobile.

The idea of setting up a basketball hoop so that the backboard faces the street and the shooting is all done from the street instead of the driveway is baffling to me. You're shitting me on that one, right?

[Xithras]

115. Not a bit.

Very common here. You don't see it on the busier streets, but they're everywhere on the quiet residential ones.

[Snobblevitch]

116. I have to ask.

Why are the basketball hoops not set up so the play is in the driveway? That's the way it is done everywhere I have seen.

We once lived on a short street in which the only reason for a car to be on that street was to go to one of houses. Even on that street, yes there was a lot of playing in the street, mostly hockey on rollerblades, but there was not a single basketball hoop set up in the manner you describe. It just was not necessary to increase the risk, every house had a driveway.

[Xithras]

120. Sloped driveways

Or so I'm told.

Truth be told, I think it has more to do with the fact that people cram their garages full of crap and park their cars in their driveway.

[Codeine]

117. Kids don't do that in your neighborhood?

They do it here here all the time.

[Duckhunter935]

127. we have quite a few here

The idea of setting up a basketball hoop so that the backboard faces the street and the shooting is all done from the street instead of the driveway is baffling to me. You're shitting me on that one, right?

very little traffic in our subdivision and the kids play in the street all the time.

[Logical]

118. Sure, lets fight over a damaged hobby. Calling police is a smarter idea. nt

[Xithras]

121. It has nothing to do with intelligence.

My son is an engineering student who loves technology, and it's a big part of his life. If some drunk fucktard smashed one of his machines just for the hell of it, there would be blows. He's not one to turn his back on that kind of disrespect.

[Logical]

126. LOL, I love tough guys who have no fucking idea who they are fighting. "disrespect", LOL, are you...

just fucking wit me.

[Xithras]

128. Nope.

First off, I live in Modesto, so if I called the police they wouldn't do anything. Our police department doesn't send officers out to property crimes (they just write up a report over the phone). If they won't come out for a burglary, stolen vehicle, or smashed window, why would they come out over a broken toy? The only reason to call the police over something like this would be to get a police report number for an insurance claim, and toys generally aren't insured.

Second, I've always been the kind of guy who stands up to the neighborhood asshole. When I see a racist, I'm the guy who stands up and berates the racist in public. When I see a bully, I'm the guy who calls him out and, if needed, gets physical with him (that last bit got me into a lot of fights in high school, but also made me a lot of friends among the previously bullied). If you do some searches back through my posting history, you'll find that I'm the type who chained himself across the roads with Judi Bari during Redwood Summer and went toe to toe with loggers who were threatening to kill us, right to our faces, for putting their livelihood at risk. I'm not the meek type. If some drunk bully harassed my kid and smashed one of his toys just to be a jerk, we'd have a very serious problem.

[Vattel]

107. Huntington Beach. Great waves. Great weather. Great memories.

Oh, wait, this is a thread about drone-swatting. For some reason, shirtless drone-swatter man is more appealing to me than skinny drone-flying man. So I guess I believe that the dangers and potential invasions of privacy that the drone represented warranted its destruction at the hands of a justifiably concerned resident of that paradise that I once knew ever so intimately: Huntington Beach.

[WinkyDink]

119. I loathe the very thought of drones and would like to see them all swatted down. Nosey-Parkers.

[Codeine]

123. I fly my little UDI camera-quad all the time.

Probably gonna zip mine around after dinner since the breeze has settled down a bit from earlier. I love seeing aerial views of my neighborhood, and nobody here has ever reacted with anything other than curiosity and enthusiasm when they see it zipping around. Instead of shirtless fat fucks frantically destroying property or amateur lawyers asserting the right to HULK SMASH anything they don't like the people around here just say "Make it do a flip!" or "How high can that thing go?" and kids fucking love it.

:Shrug: I guess I don't have shitty neighbors.

[WinkyDink]

133. "I love seeing aerial views of my neighborhood---I make do with Google. I don't need to spy.

[snooper2]

135. the drones are coming the drones are coming!

HIDE! LOL

[kwassa]

122. Enrique Iglesias Bloody Drone Accident

check this out.

[hunter]

129. I don't know why, but I find those things intensely irritating.

Drone flyers ought to consider incidents like this an accident like any other and simply move on.