Question: how high does a vehicle need to be to be "not in someone's property"?
Seems we have to consider vertical height. Without a doubt, that drone was certainly "in" that person's property, and he had a right to have it removed.
Whether a shotgun was the best approach is another matter, it was certainly effective in disabling the drone.
I don't think it reasonable that someone should deliberately place their property within the bounds of someone else's residence without the resident owner's permission and expect to have their property returned without some form of damages, either monetary or otherwise.
If the residence owner gave fair warning to leave (e.g. held up a sign reading "F… OFF") and the operator of the drone did not heed that advice, the operator has himself to blame.
The problem was that the drone was waay too low, and thus could be considered within the boundary of the residence. I think we need to consider the property in terms of 3D space; not just the 2D boundary on a map, but how far above and below the ground surface is also considered "part of the property". If it were high enough, it would not be close enough to pose a privacy risk, or possibly even be detected. (Too high, and it gets into commercial airspace. Perhaps there's a good privacy reason for the boundaries here to meet.)
Infinity isn't an option, since commercial aircraft may fly over in some cases, and for the most part they pose no danger or privacy concern. It clearly isn't zero either, as this case demonstrates. I think this question needs a definite answer. I suspect there is one, it just needs to be clearly communicated to the general public.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
