Re: "Photographer" is attacked after taking photos of beach goers with his quadrocopt
Shoot at a drone flying over my backyard, whether it be government or not? My first reaction as a red-blooded American is YEAH! As much as I'd like to, though, just because of my rebellious redneck ways... nah.
1) Could be a kid's toy, and how cruel would it be to tell a kid he can only occupy the airspace over his own little lot?
2) Never know who/what else might be hit nearby. Granted, I have closer neighbors than some. Some ammunition can travel quite the LONG distance though.
3) If they're taking pics of me in my yard, well... they're desperate, and I know I'm not doing anything worth capturing by way of photo or video.
4) Might piss off the operator, being that he just lost a chunk of change, and he might have a gun... no need for gun fights.
5) Don't want to risk how it would be prosecuted/ruled in court if charges are filed. Speculate all you want, courts don't operate on speculation.
Now... smack it with a bat? HELL YEAH! If it's close enough to be whacked, I was just protecting myself. Those flying things, with their propellers and motors and speed and weight and velocity... they can do damage to my pretty face! Self defense, plain and simple! Not sure what all the hubbub is with surveillance drones anyway. If folks really want to see me, they can park a van down the street, send in an undercover "neighbor", peek over the fence, or any number of things. Hell... they can dial me up on the satellite if they really want, and I've heard they can count the hairs on my arse with those things, should I choose to wander around naked (which I don't).
I think I'll just get back to taking pictures and not even complain, as it might add to the list of things photographers can't shoot.
As far as the article: Wonder if she also assaulted everyone else that looked in her direction? Nut case... if she didn't want to be viewed, maybe she shouldn't go out in public. My .02, which is worth about .002 if calculated correctly.
