Reply to post: Re: @h4rm0ny - What is the sky?

Bloke sues dad who shot down his drone – and why it may decide who owns the skies

h4rm0ny

Re: @h4rm0ny - What is the sky?

>>"Downvoted, not for the gun stuff (see later), but because here's the drone owner's version"

Okay, so you downvoted me because the drone owner has now produced a contradictory account. Understood. I've now watched and read your link including the Fox News interview. One thing I note, though it's an aside, is how Meredith is having photos of himself plastered everywhere and footage of him in an argument when he's being arrested. The argument seems to revolve around the fact that someone is filming him being arrested which plausibly seems to be the drone owner or friend showing up to film Meredith being arrested after he called the police on him. Meredith isn't violent in any way, but is swearing. If someone called the police on me and then filmed my arrest, I would not be happy either. I also don't like the PR angle that Boggs keeps trying to play with things like "the world famous drone-slayer" and such. Everything I've read with Boggs seems to give me the feeling he's playing some PR battle against the guy. One example is the photograph of a drone shown several times in your link of a distant blur in the sky and an enlarged inset showing it's a drone. Is there any claim that this photograph actually was taken at the time? No. It's almost certain it wasn't. But it's presented as if it was. The site you link to has multiple hallmarks of this sort of "truth-y" presentation.

Now specifically as to him coming forward with his own version, I would be stunned if the map he showed on his iPad was remotely admissible as evidence. Drones record basic telemetry which you export as a text file as I understand it. I haven't used this software but I would lay good money that I could produce you whatever flight path you wanted. Unless the iPad was seized at the time by the police (which it wasn't), there's no evidence of Boggs' is story. Whilst on the other side we have multiple eye-witness statements, the range of the shotgun itself, where the shotgun presumably fell and the sudden appearance of flight path data.

>>Now, regarding the guns, if someone starts shooting at and destroying my property, I think I'd be a little miffed, and if I wanted to have a word with them, I doubt I'd just go up to their house, knock on the door and say "excuse me, old chap, would you mind not doing that?" I'd want a few friends with me

You wouldn't call the police or something? You'd get your mates together and go round there? How is what you're saying different to what I said. I simply pointed out that a lone line saying "and then threatened the owner with a gun" is quite different to four angry people showing up and you warning them to stay off your property.

>>"When we see the guy I want to speak to is packing a side arm and threatening 'If you cross my sidewalk, there's gonna be another shooting" I think we're going to back off. "

Crossing the sidewalk means the pavement. It's a street-facing house - crossing it means you're now walking into his garden. Just to be clear.

>>"(NB nowhere can I find anything that says the drone owner or his friends are carrying firearms...)"

And nowhere in my post will you find it stated that they were. I simply observed that four angry unknown men pulling up outside your house and heading into your property is a very different mental image to "and then he threatened them with a gun". And your facts are supporting that, so I stand by it. Four men don't need a gun to make me feel threatened.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019