Reply to post:

The criminal mischief charge never had a chance. The drone was hovering on his property. That's trespass and under those circumstances the precedent is well established that he had the right to destroy it. The endangerment charge makes a bit more sense. Depending upon exactly which jurisdiction this happened in I could see that one being more problematic to him. If he were in a jurisdiction where level heads prevail they'd realize that a shotgun fired into the air doesn't actually endanger anyone. Shot doesn't fall fast enough to be a problem and it sheds it's angular velocity very quickly.