Shouldn't have admitted shit to that cop. If they came asking questions about this, tell them to talk to your lawyer and go away.
I'm certain a decent public defender could turn this around, but if you admit to everything on bodycam, you're screwed. It sucks that we have to live like this, afraid to defend our own property and privacy because we'll be fucking thrown into prison.
This cop says he's in "a lot" of trouble. I don't understand why- this should be treated like peeping, and I think you're pretty well within your rights to shoot someone in the face if they're standing in your yard, staring through your window.
The way the law should work, to protect self-defenders, is that the next action that a criminal will take will lead to the WORST POSSIBLE OUTCOME. But it's like the courts expect you to read a criminal's mind, and that you MUST TRUST THE CRIMINAL not to hurt you or use what they've stolen from you against you somehow. Fuck that. If someone kicks my door in, why can't I assume they mean to kill me and steal everything in the building?
Don't lie brother. I respect honesty. Just don't speak. Why do you think it's referred to as the "right to remain silent"? Lying to a cop is a crime. Not answering their questions isn't and is still morally righteous. Its also Something that many God fearing men have died to protect our right to do.
Shouldn't have spoken to the cop or opened the door at all. Did he ask them to come? Then don't invite the state to a game of "how screwed do i get today?" for ZERO reason.
If they have the right to enter (legally a warrant) they will.
The courts actually expect that anyone who knows the law will never risk self incrimination because to do so is the legal equivalent of giving your beretta a blowjob. They also expect that anyone less intelligent or learned will be profitable for them and make sure they're well paid.
The laws regarding engaging low-flying peeping drones do need to be changed and I have been flying remote aircraft for thirty years. I'm not a jackass with it though.
What a stupid White old man. NEVER talk to police. Just say you do not wish to partake in an investigation and to get off your property but firstly stay inside your home and DO NOT answer the door.
For anyone who needs a refresher or don't know why the old guy tripped on his dick, here's Professor James Duane's "Don't Talk to the Police" explaining it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
More concise, maybe. Better? nah. The original gives relevant context that supports why shutting the fuck up IS ALWAYS the right answer. That said, I totally support STFU friday and every other day.
Police are generally lazy fucks and I sure as fuck ain't doing their job for them. The fact that I'm forced at gunpoint to pay them is bad enough without bending over and winking at them.
Any concept of right, offered by and guaranteed by another, endures only as long as they choose to provide it. It's a fucking illusion. If you cannot assert your concept of right as a matter of your personal will, it does not exist. Rights were a European ideal, wholly artificial constructs meant to govern European men in European societies. The United States of America is no longer a European society, it' s an emergent third world economic zone.
[ - ] Theo 0 points 6 monthsDec 14, 2024 20:40:52 ago (+0/-0)
No, Blackstone calls them rights, and corporations don't have them.
Those rights then which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture.
You're lost in your indoctrination. Beyond that, you're also mistaken in your belief that what Blackstone calls them is at all relevant; one man's treatise does not dictate the fundamental expression of reality. What you are speaking of are privileges, ideals really, that are created and granted by the social constructs of man.
A Law exists independent of belief and to the best of our knowledge cannot be broken by any action, any choice, made by man. There are four of them that we know of; that of strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetic force.
No animal can be demonstrated to have a right to life that is recognized in a state of nature; indeed it can be taken rather easily; randomly, accidentally, for cause, or for the pleasure killing itself. There is no prohibition on the act of killing outside of societal constructs and even then, in every instance - the only thing that matters to society is the reason for doing so. Similarly, no animal has a right to liberty as expressed in nature... The concept of liberty itself not inherent in natural world but rather one created and defined by human societies through laws, social norms, and political systems.
The point was already made. You being unable to discern that proves simply proves my assertion that you're incompetent to the task. Run along, I'm sure there's a crayon out there that needs eating.
Can someone please explain to me why what he did was 'illegal'?
You typically cannot discharge a firearm within 500 feet of a dwelling, and for good reason.
It has been consistently ruled that you do not own the air space above your property.
It has also been consistently ruled that anything in the public view can be photographed.
That said, if your back yard is fenced off and your neighbor points a camera from a elevated position at it, that is an invasion of privacy I believe. <<< it gets fuzzy here, obviously you can look into their yard but recording it is not okay.
I also don't disagree with the guy, the drone was being menacing and no one likes that. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right and whatever kid that was operating it maliciously needs a good ass beating.
Why wouldn't flying a drone or any kind of remote-controlled device onto a person's property not be considered trespassing? That drone he saw could've been trying to peep into people's windows and take video of nude people or w/e.
I'm also very curious about the string he described- he said it descended a string, then pulled something up, then he shot at it and it flew off.
I think the cops want to protect drones because they use them. Shit, that could've been one of theirs for all we know.
[ - ] Merlynn 1 point 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 23:18:28 ago (+2/-1)
There's a string encircling a huge chunk of New York that the jews believe protects them from pissing off god. As long as the string is up,they believe they can do whatever they want and it's "ok" by god.
The eruv doesn't let them do anything, it extends their "home" so they can do a few things normally not permitted on the Sabbath. It's still trying to trick their god, but don't lie about what it is.
All that is irrelevant. Regardless what the drone is doing you're not authorized to shoot it down. You get a hold of the Flight Standards District Office and file a report. Regardless what sovcit idiots think the FAA will not play with a drone operator making a pain in the ass of himself. The FAA WILL find out who the operator is, then break it off in his ass to the tune of 250k. With remoteID in effect every drone that takes off is broadcasting everything they need to know to find the operator.
[ - ] Peleg 1 point 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 19:58:07 ago (+1/-0)
Well now yes, that's the government approved way of dealing with a trouble maker like this drone operator. The problem here is that practically Nobody knows to do that. What folks do know is they have been watching all these videos of people getting blown to smithereens by drones! Even though it's in a whole different part of the world it still makes people nervous and even scared if some jackass is screwing around with a drone hoovering over them.
That's what the law says nigger. I don't give half a fuck what your retarded ass thinks of the law, I'm telling you what it says. I can see you revel in complete ignorance and wish you the best because with your attitude and complete ignorance you're not long for a life outside the yard.
I don't disagree with you at all of course I also believe that trespassers should be shot on sight.
The "law" allows those who are in power to stay in power and for those who can not or will not do for themselves. People just need to use a little common sense and courtesy.
Leave me alone and I'll leave you alone, fuck with me and die. <<< this is where the law intervenes but if it didn't I suspect that we wouldn't have these kind of problems.
It's been consistently ruled that people should cut their own heads off. Who fuckn cares what a bunch of corrupt and self interested judges rule on anymore
The problem is determining whether a drone is a threat. Right now, it's just doing some consoomerisms, but you won't know drones are threats if you're one of the first targets.
Drone operator. Don't agree with the law but know a little bit about it. Also the operator probably deserved to get his craft blasted. Shits not funny, or cool, or ok. If grandpa can hit your angry bumblebeee with a nine you're too damn close.
Basic version is: drones are considered aircraft federally. That's not exactly wrong. Being an unmanned aircraft doesn't make whole lot of difference, legally.
So with that established. Pops shot (what is legally speaking) a plane out of the sky because it flew over his house. Once again not agreeing just conveying.
Now that we've established what he actually did illegal, we can move to what he did wrong.
Dumbass act the first: using a 9mm on a small UAS (unmanned aerial system). Birdshot is much more effective for the target at hand (not advocating this action, just stating facts.) A 9mm can be lethal to someone innocent downrange even if you hit your intended target. Firing such at an upward angle in a populated area is and really should be illegal. Shits stupid. #8 Birdshot still carries some risk to soft tissue like eyes but generally wont penetrate skin when falling. I know this personally as I've been rained on by such before. It stings but its much more like a red ryder bb gun but softer.
The real 12 IQ, boot licker move: Not using the fact that many men much better than him have literally died so that he can shut the fuck up (or better: not open the door) when he police come to ask questions. This part I do 100% whole heartedly condone: Never EVER for any reason talk to a guy whose job is to find someone with which to charge with a crime, arrest, and imprison. There is absolutely no way him speaking to them would help him because even if what he said totally exonerated him it legally cannot be used for his defense. This was not dignity and honor. This was clueless and reckless with total disregard for the safety of others or the ruthlessness of the state.
If he had shut the fuck up and some how him firing on the UAS had not been witnessed ie when it wasn't pointing at him, there might have been plausible deniability. But a detailed video confession? Dude better hope Jamal is gentle and lets him hold his pocket in the pen.
tldr: Shooting a (legally speaking) plane out of the sky with a nine and then instantly confessing to it on video will get you hemmed up. Don't be dumb.
He did the nigger Floyd "I can't breeve" line! That's fuckin' rock solid comedy right there. Old man put himself in a world of hurt by admitting to the crime, but he kept it mighty white and made me laugh so boomer wins in my book no matter what charges they throw at him
Most cities and suburbs prohibit the use of firearms within their territory. Shooting straight up is probably another charge like reckless discharge of a firearm too, since that bullet will be coming down in a random location within that city or suburb. Prohibiting shooting at airborne objects like airplanes and drones is common too.
The Grandpa could have declined to have a conversation where he incriminated himself without actually lying.
This is an interesting variation of a common fear of cameras in public, as seen with 1st amendment auditors.
No he did not carry himself with dignity or honor. The ignorant jackass thought he owned the airspace over his house, and no he doesn't. He then demonstrated said ignorance of that and his right to STFU by talking to Officer Schmedly there.
Boomers are stupid as a rule. Dumb fuck gives a full confession, tries repeatedly to wave his rights, makes jokes that the prosecution could try to turn into an issue of mindset, the whole time oblivious to the gravity of the situation he put himself in. This isn't fucking Mayberry, this is the dystopian hellscape their stupidity created in it's place. Never talk to the police. Never offer information. Never offer clarification. Never rebutt. Shut the fuck up. Embrace the theater of rights you still believe you possess. And... Never fucking talk to police.
Wrong answer. 5 years is definitely a felony. Go back to law school idiot. Also you don't need to do damage to get hit with sabotage. Just point your laser at an aircraft and you're in a heap of shit.
I enjoy how you belive that someone can knock a registered drone that belongs to a billion dollar corp out the sky by shooting it, and they cannot leverage a felony.
No, because he consented to be questioned and arrested for commercial infractions (AKA by-laws).
He's probably being charged with discharging a 'firearm' within city limits (revised statue, again, a by-law and commercial infraction) or potentially disturbing the peace.
[ + ] BloodyComet
[ - ] BloodyComet 18 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 15:50:58 ago (+19/-1)
I'm certain a decent public defender could turn this around, but if you admit to everything on bodycam, you're screwed. It sucks that we have to live like this, afraid to defend our own property and privacy because we'll be fucking thrown into prison.
This cop says he's in "a lot" of trouble. I don't understand why- this should be treated like peeping, and I think you're pretty well within your rights to shoot someone in the face if they're standing in your yard, staring through your window.
The way the law should work, to protect self-defenders, is that the next action that a criminal will take will lead to the WORST POSSIBLE OUTCOME. But it's like the courts expect you to read a criminal's mind, and that you MUST TRUST THE CRIMINAL not to hurt you or use what they've stolen from you against you somehow. Fuck that. If someone kicks my door in, why can't I assume they mean to kill me and steal everything in the building?
[ + ] VitaminSieg
[ - ] VitaminSieg 5 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 20:49:17 ago (+5/-0)
Because they're sanctioned by the government and there to ruin or kill you Legally.
[ + ] PotatoWhisperer2
[ - ] PotatoWhisperer2 7 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 21:49:28 ago (+7/-0)
[ + ] hylo
[ - ] hylo 2 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 23:51:54 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Kozel
[ - ] Kozel 2 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 17:55:47 ago (+3/-1)
[ + ] Clubberlang
[ - ] Clubberlang 2 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 18:12:27 ago (+3/-1)
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 1 point 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 19:06:02 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] rabidR04CH
[ - ] rabidR04CH 2 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 20:11:05 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Rowdybme
[ - ] Rowdybme 0 points 6 monthsDec 11, 2024 00:44:37 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] shadowwolf225
[ - ] shadowwolf225 2 points 6 monthsDec 11, 2024 01:54:57 ago (+2/-0)
It's not easy. But it's the right move.
[ + ] shadowwolf225
[ - ] shadowwolf225 0 points 6 monthsDec 11, 2024 01:45:51 ago (+0/-0)
If they have the right to enter (legally a warrant) they will.
The courts actually expect that anyone who knows the law will never risk self incrimination because to do so is the legal equivalent of giving your beretta a blowjob. They also expect that anyone less intelligent or learned will be profitable for them and make sure they're well paid.
The laws regarding engaging low-flying peeping drones do need to be changed and I have been flying remote aircraft for thirty years. I'm not a jackass with it though.
[ + ] kammmmak
[ - ] kammmmak 10 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 14:52:32 ago (+13/-3)
[ + ] KyleIsThisTall
[ - ] KyleIsThisTall 5 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 17:55:57 ago (+7/-2)
[ + ] Looneyskiproony
[ - ] Looneyskiproony 1 point 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 20:46:34 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] PotatoWhisperer2
[ - ] PotatoWhisperer2 3 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 21:50:04 ago (+4/-1)
[ + ] FuckShitJesus
[ - ] FuckShitJesus 1 point 6 monthsDec 11, 2024 08:42:39 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Clubberlang
[ - ] Clubberlang -2 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 18:13:14 ago (+0/-2)
[ + ] lord_nougat
[ - ] lord_nougat 10 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 14:24:44 ago (+10/-0)
[ + ] registereduser
[ - ] registereduser 5 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 15:27:16 ago (+6/-1)
[ + ] lord_nougat
[ - ] lord_nougat 8 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 15:51:48 ago (+8/-0)
[ + ] Belrial
[ - ] Belrial 3 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 19:03:25 ago (+4/-1)
[ + ] beece
[ - ] beece 9 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 17:32:19 ago (+9/-0)
[ + ] Indoctrinated_USA
[ - ] Indoctrinated_USA 5 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 18:59:42 ago (+5/-0)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkN4duV4ia0&rco=1
[ + ] shadowwolf225
[ - ] shadowwolf225 1 point 6 monthsDec 11, 2024 01:33:03 ago (+1/-0)
Police are generally lazy fucks and I sure as fuck ain't doing their job for them. The fact that I'm forced at gunpoint to pay them is bad enough without bending over and winking at them.
[ + ] shadowwolf225
[ - ] shadowwolf225 1 point 6 monthsDec 11, 2024 01:25:45 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] rzr97
[ - ] rzr97 7 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 20:28:29 ago (+7/-0)
[ + ] Theo
[ - ] Theo 7 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 14:46:39 ago (+7/-0)
[ + ] Indoctrinated_USA
[ - ] Indoctrinated_USA -1 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 18:55:51 ago (+0/-1)
It's a fucking illusion.
If you cannot assert your concept of right as a matter of your personal will, it does not exist.
Rights were a European ideal, wholly artificial constructs meant to govern European men in European societies.
The United States of America is no longer a European society, it' s an emergent third world economic zone.
[ + ] Theo
[ - ] Theo 0 points 6 monthsDec 14, 2024 17:39:33 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Indoctrinated_USA
[ - ] Indoctrinated_USA 0 points 6 monthsDec 14, 2024 20:22:50 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Theo
[ - ] Theo 0 points 6 monthsDec 14, 2024 20:40:52 ago (+0/-0)
Those rights then which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture.
[ + ] Indoctrinated_USA
[ - ] Indoctrinated_USA 0 points 6 monthsDec 14, 2024 20:59:21 ago (+0/-0)*
Beyond that, you're also mistaken in your belief that what Blackstone calls them is at all relevant; one man's treatise does not dictate the fundamental expression of reality.
What you are speaking of are privileges, ideals really, that are created and granted by the social constructs of man.
A Law exists independent of belief and to the best of our knowledge cannot be broken by any action, any choice, made by man.
There are four of them that we know of; that of strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetic force.
No animal can be demonstrated to have a right to life that is recognized in a state of nature; indeed it can be taken rather easily; randomly, accidentally, for cause, or for the pleasure killing itself. There is no prohibition on the act of killing outside of societal constructs and even then, in every instance - the only thing that matters to society is the reason for doing so.
Similarly, no animal has a right to liberty as expressed in nature... The concept of liberty itself not inherent in natural world but rather one created and defined by human societies through laws, social norms, and political systems.
[ + ] Theo
[ - ] Theo 0 points 6 monthsDec 15, 2024 04:32:36 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Indoctrinated_USA
[ - ] Indoctrinated_USA 0 points 6 monthsDec 15, 2024 06:07:30 ago (+0/-0)
You're simply incompetent to the conversation.
[ + ] Theo
[ - ] Theo -1 points 6 monthsDec 15, 2024 17:50:19 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Indoctrinated_USA
[ - ] Indoctrinated_USA 0 points 6 monthsDec 15, 2024 18:16:15 ago (+0/-0)*
You being unable to discern that proves simply proves my assertion that you're incompetent to the task.
Run along, I'm sure there's a crayon out there that needs eating.
[ + ] rhy
[ - ] rhy 5 points 6 monthsDec 11, 2024 00:28:04 ago (+5/-0)
[ + ] RMGoetbbels
[ - ] RMGoetbbels 6 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 15:34:26 ago (+6/-0)
You typically cannot discharge a firearm within 500 feet of a dwelling, and for good reason.
It has been consistently ruled that you do not own the air space above your property.
It has also been consistently ruled that anything in the public view can be photographed.
That said, if your back yard is fenced off and your neighbor points a camera from a elevated position at it, that is an invasion of privacy I believe. <<< it gets fuzzy here, obviously you can look into their yard but recording it is not okay.
I also don't disagree with the guy, the drone was being menacing and no one likes that. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right and whatever kid that was operating it maliciously needs a good ass beating.
[ + ] BloodyComet
[ - ] BloodyComet 4 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 15:53:13 ago (+5/-1)
I'm also very curious about the string he described- he said it descended a string, then pulled something up, then he shot at it and it flew off.
I think the cops want to protect drones because they use them. Shit, that could've been one of theirs for all we know.
[ + ] Clubberlang
[ - ] Clubberlang 4 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 18:56:50 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] BloodyComet
[ - ] BloodyComet 0 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 19:22:19 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Merlynn
[ - ] Merlynn 1 point 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 23:18:28 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] TheYiddler
[ - ] TheYiddler 6 points 6 monthsDec 11, 2024 06:34:45 ago (+6/-0)
[ + ] Merlynn
[ - ] Merlynn -1 points 6 monthsDec 11, 2024 15:45:25 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] TheYiddler
[ - ] TheYiddler 4 points 6 monthsDec 11, 2024 16:00:44 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] Merlynn
[ - ] Merlynn 2 points 6 monthsDec 11, 2024 16:20:18 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Belrial
[ - ] Belrial 0 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 18:47:43 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] Peleg
[ - ] Peleg 1 point 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 19:58:07 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 -1 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 19:07:39 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Belrial
[ - ] Belrial -1 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 19:10:47 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 -2 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 19:12:48 ago (+0/-2)
[ + ] Belrial
[ - ] Belrial -1 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 19:13:53 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 -1 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 19:14:29 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] RMGoetbbels
[ - ] RMGoetbbels 0 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 21:18:05 ago (+0/-0)
The "law" allows those who are in power to stay in power and for those who can not or will not do for themselves. People just need to use a little common sense and courtesy.
Leave me alone and I'll leave you alone, fuck with me and die. <<< this is where the law intervenes but if it didn't I suspect that we wouldn't have these kind of problems.
[ + ] Belfuro
[ - ] Belfuro 0 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 21:53:51 ago (+2/-2)
Tyranny just keeps taking and taking.
[ + ] yesiknow
[ - ] yesiknow -1 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 16:22:14 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Clubberlang
[ - ] Clubberlang 0 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 18:15:39 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] autotic
[ - ] autotic 5 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 15:50:39 ago (+6/-1)
Also, don't be a retard and firew a weapon in a residential area over dumb shit.
[ + ] VitaminSieg
[ - ] VitaminSieg 2 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 20:53:57 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] shadowwolf225
[ - ] shadowwolf225 3 points 6 monthsDec 11, 2024 01:22:27 ago (+3/-0)
Basic version is: drones are considered aircraft federally. That's not exactly wrong. Being an unmanned aircraft doesn't make whole lot of difference, legally.
So with that established. Pops shot (what is legally speaking) a plane out of the sky because it flew over his house. Once again not agreeing just conveying.
Now that we've established what he actually did illegal, we can move to what he did wrong.
Dumbass act the first: using a 9mm on a small UAS (unmanned aerial system). Birdshot is much more effective for the target at hand (not advocating this action, just stating facts.) A 9mm can be lethal to someone innocent downrange even if you hit your intended target. Firing such at an upward angle in a populated area is and really should be illegal. Shits stupid. #8 Birdshot still carries some risk to soft tissue like eyes but generally wont penetrate skin when falling. I know this personally as I've been rained on by such before. It stings but its much more like a red ryder bb gun but softer.
The real 12 IQ, boot licker move: Not using the fact that many men much better than him have literally died so that he can shut the fuck up (or better: not open the door) when he police come to ask questions. This part I do 100% whole heartedly condone: Never EVER for any reason talk to a guy whose job is to find someone with which to charge with a crime, arrest, and imprison. There is absolutely no way him speaking to them would help him because even if what he said totally exonerated him it legally cannot be used for his defense. This was not dignity and honor. This was clueless and reckless with total disregard for the safety of others or the ruthlessness of the state.
If he had shut the fuck up and some how him firing on the UAS had not been witnessed ie when it wasn't pointing at him, there might have been plausible deniability. But a detailed video confession? Dude better hope Jamal is gentle and lets him hold his pocket in the pen.
tldr: Shooting a (legally speaking) plane out of the sky with a nine and then instantly confessing to it on video will get you hemmed up. Don't be dumb.
[ + ] Belrial
[ - ] Belrial 0 points 6 monthsDec 11, 2024 20:21:46 ago (+1/-1)
You can see this guy was a real rocket scientist who thought "Muh airspace is being violated." Then could not STFU.
[ + ] GreenSaint
[ - ] GreenSaint 3 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 19:48:12 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] HonkyMcNiggerSpic
[ - ] HonkyMcNiggerSpic 1 point 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 23:57:23 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] DoYouEvenShit
[ - ] DoYouEvenShit 1 point 6 monthsDec 11, 2024 18:28:19 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] ItsOk2bArian
[ - ] ItsOk2bArian 2 points 6 monthsDec 11, 2024 02:49:49 ago (+2/-0)
That's fuckin' rock solid comedy right there.
Old man put himself in a world of hurt by admitting to the crime, but he kept it mighty white and made me laugh so boomer wins in my book no matter what charges they throw at him
[ + ] PoundOfFlesh
[ - ] PoundOfFlesh 2 points 6 monthsDec 11, 2024 02:43:12 ago (+2/-0)
Next time if you're going to shoot something, shoot a nigger, faggot, or kike. Or just shoot a niggerfaggotkike.
[ + ] Anus_Expander
[ - ] Anus_Expander 3 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 16:15:12 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] HonkyMcNiggerSpic
[ - ] HonkyMcNiggerSpic 2 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 23:54:27 ago (+3/-1)
[ + ] Sector2
[ - ] Sector2 2 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 15:05:18 ago (+2/-0)
The Grandpa could have declined to have a conversation where he incriminated himself without actually lying.
This is an interesting variation of a common fear of cameras in public, as seen with 1st amendment auditors.
[ + ] ICantBeArsed
[ - ] ICantBeArsed 1 point 6 monthsDec 11, 2024 01:37:13 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] Clubberlang
[ - ] Clubberlang 1 point 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 18:11:13 ago (+2/-1)*
But, ya know, jews.
[ + ] xmasskull
[ - ] xmasskull 1 point 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 14:58:59 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] Looneyskiproony
[ - ] Looneyskiproony 0 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 20:45:07 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] Belrial
[ - ] Belrial 0 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 18:53:55 ago (+1/-1)
What was illegal is shooting at a drone.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2-aircraft-sabotage-18-usc-32
There's the law that says you can't shoot aircraft, and yes drones are registered as aircraft.
[ + ] Indoctrinated_USA
[ - ] Indoctrinated_USA 0 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 18:51:17 ago (+1/-1)
Dumb fuck gives a full confession, tries repeatedly to wave his rights, makes jokes that the prosecution could try to turn into an issue of mindset, the whole time oblivious to the gravity of the situation he put himself in.
This isn't fucking Mayberry, this is the dystopian hellscape their stupidity created in it's place.
Never talk to the police.
Never offer information.
Never offer clarification.
Never rebutt.
Shut the fuck up.
Embrace the theater of rights you still believe you possess.
And...
Never fucking talk to police.
[ + ] Clubberlang
[ - ] Clubberlang 0 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 19:00:42 ago (+0/-0)
Exfuckingzactly.
[ + ] Anotherone
[ - ] Anotherone 0 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 17:41:25 ago (+2/-2)
He will end up buying Walmart a new drone or likely take the charge as a felony.
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 -1 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 17:46:18 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Belrial
[ - ] Belrial 0 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 18:52:10 ago (+1/-1)
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2-aircraft-sabotage-18-usc-32
There's the relevant law dipshit. And before you try to claim the drone doesn't count as an aircraft they're registered with the FAA as aircraft.
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 -1 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 19:02:42 ago (+0/-1)
Looking it up, it appears to be classified as E, 5 years or less and/or a fine.
It uses the phrase "shall be", which does not mean, 'must be', but rather, 'may be'.
Indicating once again that this is a commercial statue.
Further, if there is no harmed party there is no crime.
[ + ] TheNoticing
[ - ] TheNoticing 2 points 6 monthsDec 11, 2024 08:39:47 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Belrial
[ - ] Belrial -1 points 6 monthsDec 11, 2024 20:26:10 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 -1 points 6 monthsDec 11, 2024 20:27:48 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Belrial
[ - ] Belrial -1 points 6 monthsDec 11, 2024 20:30:48 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 -1 points 6 monthsDec 11, 2024 20:27:08 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Belrial
[ - ] Belrial -1 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 19:07:08 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 -1 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 19:08:50 ago (+0/-1)
Never going to law school, faggot.
That's why if you're gonna shoot it, make sure you get it.
[ + ] Anotherone
[ - ] Anotherone 0 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 19:04:03 ago (+1/-1)
It is whatever they say it is at this point.
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 -1 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 19:05:13 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Anotherone
[ - ] Anotherone 1 point 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 22:22:38 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Belrial
[ - ] Belrial -1 points 6 monthsDec 11, 2024 20:24:32 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 0 points 6 monthsDec 11, 2024 20:25:40 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] Belrial
[ - ] Belrial -1 points 6 monthsDec 11, 2024 20:28:17 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 -1 points 6 monthsDec 11, 2024 20:28:39 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Belrial
[ - ] Belrial -1 points 6 monthsDec 11, 2024 20:31:28 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 0 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 14:19:54 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] Dingo
[ - ] Dingo [op] 1 point 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 14:23:00 ago (+1/-0)
That said, doesn't the 2nd and 4th amendment protect him from prosecution?
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 2 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 14:26:59 ago (+3/-1)
He's probably being charged with discharging a 'firearm' within city limits (revised statue, again, a by-law and commercial infraction) or potentially disturbing the peace.
[ + ] Belrial
[ - ] Belrial -1 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 18:56:08 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Belrial
[ - ] Belrial -1 points 6 monthsDec 10, 2024 18:58:16 ago (+0/-1)
https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2024/06/27/florida-man-accused-of-shooting-walmart-delivery-drone/