Re: Bullit County
"But the situation was not similar"
The drone was over his property = trespass. If someone was physically there, the owner would be fully entitled to ask the trespasser to leave, and forcefully eject him if not complied with. In this case it isn't clear whether he could identify / communicate with the drone pilot, I'm guessing not.
The guy was fully entitled to forcibly eject the drone from his property. Now, maybe it's possible that the guy could have used some non-fatal (to the drone) way of bringing it down, but probably not. So shooting it down should be OK.
The only reason I would censure the shooter would be if for example the trajectory of the shot got bits of shot on a public area where they could hurt someone (which I guess is the 'endangerment' part of the charge brought against him), but that is related to correct firearm usage and not strictly related to shooting the drone down.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
