Since IANAL, I didn't realize there is an exception that allows the
government to search your property without a warrant.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia-wildlife-officials-trespassed-mans-land-stole-trail-camera-lawsuit-alleges

Its called the "Open-fields doctrine"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-fields_doctrine

My house surrounded by my hay field can be searched until they get close
to the house. No trespassing signs even fences don't prevent the search.

There is even a story where agents put a camera on a bear to see if a
homeowner was feeding bears in violation of the law.

https://www.ctinsider.com/connecticut/article/couple-lawsuit-bear-camera-4th-amendment-18131994.php

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:

Since IANAL, I didn't realize there is an exception that allows
the government to search your property without a warrant.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia-wildlife-officials-trespassed-m ans-land-stole-trail-camera-lawsuit-alleges

Its called the "Open-fields doctrine"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-fields_doctrine

My house surrounded by my hay field can be searched until they get
close to the house. No trespassing signs even fences don't
prevent the search.

There is even a story where agents put a camera on a bear to see
if a homeowner was feeding bears in violation of the law.

https://www.ctinsider.com/connecticut/article/couple-lawsuit-bear-c amera-4th-amendment-18131994.php

Criminal law is not my field, but I do know that the law has the
concept of the curtilage - the are around the living quarters as
being what is protected. Other buildings are also protected, but
apparently open fields have a different standard.


--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 6/20/2023 12:04 PM, Roy wrote:

Since IANAL, I didn't realize there is an exception that allows the government to search your property without a warrant.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia-wildlife-officials-trespassed-mans-land-stole-trail-camera-lawsuit-alleges

Its called the "Open-fields doctrine"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-fields_doctrine

My house surrounded by my hay field can be searched until they get close
to the house.  No trespassing signs even fences don't prevent the search.

There is even a story where agents put a camera on a bear to see if a homeowner was feeding bears in violation of the law.

https://www.ctinsider.com/connecticut/article/couple-lawsuit-bear-camera-4th-amendment-18131994.php

Yeah, there's this concept of "curtilage": the area surrounding a house
or other private building, especially the dooryards (the area in front
of each door).

It comes down to a basic principle of privacy: what happens in private
is private and not to be invaded. What happens in public is public. If
it can be seen from the street or public walkway, it's public. If it
can't be seen from the street, the police have no business coming onto
the property to spy on you.

Farms are a little bit different. The farmhouse (if any) and the area immediately around it is private. The fields -- the areas devoted to
growing plants or animals for food or for sale -- aren't. They're sort
of in-between -- not open to the public, but they can be surveilled and
even walked on as long as the police don't damage anything. Walking on
crops is trespassing.

A camera on a bear or other wildlife is a different question. The bear,
not being human, has no property rights. The police can put a camera on
it, or a tracking device to see where it goes. If the camera "happens"
to catch you feeding the bear, that's usable in court because the police
didn't violate anybody's property rights.

Some of this derives from a speech in Parliament by William Pitt in 1763:
"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the
crown. It may be frail—its roof may shake—the wind may blow through it—the storm may enter, the rain may enter—but the King of England
cannot enter—all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement."
(Except with a warrant issued by a court, Barry notes)



--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

It appears that Barry Gold <bgold@labcats.org> said:

A camera on a bear or other wildlife is a different question. The bear,
not being human, has no property rights. The police can put a camera on
it, or a tracking device to see where it goes. If the camera "happens"
to catch you feeding the bear, that's usable in court because the police >didn't violate anybody's property rights.

The Connecticut case is more complex than that. The state thinks,
probably with good reason, that the plaintiff has been illegally
feeding the bears to get them to hang around for the tourists to whom
he charges admission. He argues, again probably with good reason, that
the camera on the bear was intended specifically to spy on him. I have
no idea how a court will resolve it.

It's sort of like flying drones with cameras is OK so long as they
don't get too close to your house, but how close is too close?

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 6/20/2023 12:24 PM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:

Since IANAL, I didn't realize there is an exception that allows
the government to search your property without a warrant.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia-wildlife-officials-trespassed-m
ans-land-stole-trail-camera-lawsuit-alleges

Its called the "Open-fields doctrine"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-fields_doctrine

My house surrounded by my hay field can be searched until they get
close to the house. No trespassing signs even fences don't
prevent the search.

There is even a story where agents put a camera on a bear to see
if a homeowner was feeding bears in violation of the law.

https://www.ctinsider.com/connecticut/article/couple-lawsuit-bear-c
amera-4th-amendment-18131994.php

Criminal law is not my field, but I do know that the law has the
concept of the curtilage - the are around the living quarters as
being what is protected. Other buildings are also protected, but
apparently open fields have a different standard.

To complicate matters, various states have different laws for privacy I
live in Oregon and my fenced property would require a warrant.

From the wiki

"the highest courts of Montana, New York, Oregon and Vermont, as well as
a Washington state appeals court, have held that the open-fields
doctrine does not apply in those states due to their state constitutions granting greater protections to citizens (under dual sovereignty a state
may grant its citizens more rights than those guaranteed in the federal constitution). Since Katz grounded privacy in persons rather than
places, they argue, landowners who have taken affirmative steps to
exclude the public such as fencing or posting the bounds assert a
privacy interest sufficient to prevail over any warrantless search of
the property where common exceptions such as hot pursuit and plain view
do not apply. Some of those opinions have been critical of not only
Oliver but Hester.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

It appears that Barry Gold <bgold@labcats.org> said:

A camera on a bear or other wildlife is a different question. The
bear, not being human, has no property rights. The police can put
a camera on it, or a tracking device to see where it goes. If the
camera "happens" to catch you feeding the bear, that's usable in
court because the police didn't violate anybody's property rights.

The Connecticut case is more complex than that. The state thinks,
probably with good reason, that the plaintiff has been illegally
feeding the bears to get them to hang around for the tourists to
whom he charges admission. He argues, again probably with good
reason, that the camera on the bear was intended specifically to
spy on him. I have no idea how a court will resolve it.

It's sort of like flying drones with cameras is OK so long as they
don't get too close to your house, but how close is too close?

The difference is that a drone is something you have more or less
complete control over. With a wild animal you just have to attach
the camera and hope for the best.


--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Tue, 20 Jun 2023 12:04:55 -0700 (PDT), Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:

Since IANAL, I didn't realize there is an exception that allows the >government to search your property without a warrant.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia-wildlife-officials-trespassed-mans-land-stole-trail-camera-lawsuit-alleges

Its called the "Open-fields doctrine"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-fields_doctrine

My house surrounded by my hay field can be searched until they get close
to the house. No trespassing signs even fences don't prevent the search.

There is even a story where agents put a camera on a bear to see if a >homeowner was feeding bears in violation of the law.

https://www.ctinsider.com/connecticut/article/couple-lawsuit-bear-camera-4th-amendment-18131994.php

Isn't the conclusion that must be drawn from these two things that if
you are going to feed the bear, you should do so close enough to the
house so that it's not open fields. There any photos the bear takes
should be inadmissable for any legal purpose.

Although once the govt. has seen them, won't people in the govt. be
twice as determined to "get" the property owner? Is there any remedy
for that?

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

micky <misc07@fmguy.com> wrote

Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:

Since IANAL, I didn't realize there is an exception that allows
the government to search your property without a warrant.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia-wildlife-officials-trespassed-m >>ans-land-stole-trail-camera-lawsuit-alleges

Its called the "Open-fields doctrine"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-fields_doctrine

My house surrounded by my hay field can be searched until they get
close to the house. No trespassing signs even fences don't
prevent the search.

There is even a story where agents put a camera on a bear to see
if a homeowner was feeding bears in violation of the law.

https://www.ctinsider.com/connecticut/article/couple-lawsuit-bear-c >>amera-4th-amendment-18131994.php

Isn't the conclusion that must be drawn from these two things that
if you are going to feed the bear, you should do so close enough
to the house so that it's not open fields. There any photos the
bear takes should be inadmissable for any legal purpose.

The issue is whether a wild animal can be a government agent. When a
human does something that would be a Fourth Amendment violation if
the government did it, it's admissible because the prohibition
against improper search and seizure is only against the government.
I have never researched this issue, but it seems to me it would be
more like a random search, since you never know where the bear is
going to go. And random searches are often approved even when there
is no probable cause.

Although once the govt. has seen them, won't people in the govt.
be twice as determined to "get" the property owner? Is there any
remedy for that?

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Stuart O. Bronstein" <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:

} The difference is that a drone is something you have more or less
} complete control over.

How low can a drone fly over your property? three feet above ground level?
Can it hover outside your windows and look in? I think/though that the
FAA regulated them but I have no idea what they're permitted "airspace" is

/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

According to Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com>:

"Stuart O. Bronstein" <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:

} The difference is that a drone is something you have more or less
} complete control over.

How low can a drone fly over your property? three feet above ground level?

The FAA says the maximum height for a drone is 400 feet without a
waiver, with obvious exclusions near an airport or in controlled
airspace. The operator has to be able to see the drone at all times.

State law controls how close a drone can get to people or property.
Very few states have specific drone laws (VA only has one about police
using them) so laws about trespass and harassment apply. I gather this
is a hot topic and the details are very unsettled.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 6/23/2023 12:54 PM, Bernie Cosell wrote:

"Stuart O. Bronstein"<spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:

} The difference is that a drone is something you have more or less
} complete control over.

How low can a drone fly over your property? three feet above ground level? Can it hover outside your windows and look in? I think/though that the
FAA regulated them but I have no idea what they're permitted "airspace" is

The FAA controls the space starting 1,000 ft AGL (above ground level).
Below that it belongs to the owner of the property it sits above.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 6/23/2023 9:28 PM, John Levine wrote:

According to Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com>:

"Stuart O. Bronstein" <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:

} The difference is that a drone is something you have more or less
} complete control over.

How low can a drone fly over your property? three feet above ground level?

The FAA says the maximum height for a drone is 400 feet without a
waiver, with obvious exclusions near an airport or in controlled
airspace. The operator has to be able to see the drone at all times.

State law controls how close a drone can get to people or property.
Very few states have specific drone laws (VA only has one about police
using them) so laws about trespass and harassment apply. I gather this
is a hot topic and the details are very unsettled.

Another magic number is 170 feet. Antennas exceeding 170 feet are
required by the FCC and FAA to be lighted. Many years ago I had a FCC
license to operate radio and TV stations and I remember a requirement
for two bulbs in each light and the engineer on duty had to verify each
night which bulb was in use at each level. If on the backup, the
primary had to be replaced with a few days. Antenna over 2000' are very
special cases.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

} State law controls how close a drone can get to people or property.
} Very few states have specific drone laws (VA only has one about police
} using them) so laws about trespass and harassment apply. I gather this
} is a hot topic and the details are very unsettled.

A related question: is it legal to shoot down [or otherwise
disable/destroy] a drone flying over your property?

/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

It appears that Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> said:

} Very few states have specific drone laws (VA only has one about police
} using them) so laws about trespass and harassment apply. I gather this
} is a hot topic and the details are very unsettled.

A related question: is it legal to shoot down [or otherwise
disable/destroy] a drone flying over your property?

It's a matter of state law but in general I doubt it.

If you shoot down the drone, neither you nor the operator can control
where it hits the ground, and most of the bullets are going to miss
the drone and come down somewhere else. Unless you can demonstrate
that the drone was a danger and not just an annoyance, you may well be
liable for damage to the drone, too.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> wrote

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

} State law controls how close a drone can get to people or property.
} Very few states have specific drone laws (VA only has one about police
} using them) so laws about trespass and harassment apply. I gather this
} is a hot topic and the details are very unsettled.

A related question: is it legal to shoot down [or otherwise
disable/destroy] a drone flying over your property?

Interesting question. I don't know that there is a rule for that. But I
would imagine that if it's trespassing and becomes a nuisance, that would likely be proper.


--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Sun, 25 Jun 2023 06:45:42 -0700 (PDT),
Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> wrote:

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

} State law controls how close a drone can get to people or property.
} Very few states have specific drone laws (VA only has one about police
} using them) so laws about trespass and harassment apply. I gather this
} is a hot topic and the details are very unsettled.

A related question: is it legal to shoot down [or otherwise
disable/destroy] a drone flying over your property?

/Bernie\

That's what the Ukrainians and the Israelis have been doing. But of
course they're not in the USA, so maybe it's different.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"micky" wrote in message news:o85h9ihraff5tj4otiojk80t3965knroa7@4ax.com...

In misc.legal.moderated, on Sun, 25 Jun 2023 06:45:42 -0700 (PDT),
Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> wrote:

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

} State law controls how close a drone can get to people or property.
} Very few states have specific drone laws (VA only has one about police
} using them) so laws about trespass and harassment apply. I gather this
} is a hot topic and the details are very unsettled.

A related question: is it legal to shoot down [or otherwise >>disable/destroy] a drone flying over your property?

/Bernie\

That's what the Ukrainians and the Israelis have been doing. But of
course they're not in the USA, so maybe it's different.

But the drones shot down by Israel and Ukraine are clearly being used as weapons. I think if you knew that a drone over your property was being used
as a weapon and that your life or property were under attack, you'd likely
be justified in shooting it down. A drone sent over your property that appears to be just for someone's amusement would be a different case. If your life and property aren't in danger of being attacked, then shooting
down the drone could create other problems such as bullets going astray and possibly jeopardizing the life or property of innocent third parties.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On June 25, Bernie Cosell wrote:

A related question: is it legal to shoot down [or otherwise
disable/destroy] a drone flying over your property?

Was it legal for the Pakistan air force to shoot down the helicopter
carrying the commando squad, sent to whack Osama, in 2011?

(assuming they had spotted that bird)

--
Rich

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On June 20, Barry Gold wrote:

It comes down to a basic principle of privacy: what happens in private
is private and not to be invaded. What happens in public is public. If
it can be seen from the street or public walkway, it's public.

What if a house has a digital code door lock, and one places
a camera on the sidewalk, which can zoom in to the lock's
keypad, watching as the home owner punches it?


--
Rich

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/3/2023 10:03 PM, RichD wrote:

On June 25, Bernie Cosell wrote:

A related question: is it legal to shoot down [or otherwise
disable/destroy] a drone flying over your property?

Was it legal for the Pakistan air force to shoot down the helicopter
carrying the commando squad, sent to whack Osama, in 2011?

(assuming they had spotted that bird)

--
Rich

Was it legal for the Soviets to shoot down Powers U-2?

Was it legal for the US to shoot down the Chinese balloon?

Legal by who?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"RichD" wrote in message news:00e80990-63e5-477d-8e31-f021af29cb4bn@googlegroups.com...

On June 25, Bernie Cosell wrote:

A related question: is it legal to shoot down [or otherwise
disable/destroy] a drone flying over your property?

Was it legal for the Pakistan air force to shoot down the helicopter
carrying the commando squad, sent to whack Osama, in 2011?

(assuming they had spotted that bird)

--
Rich

Well that would be Pakistani law, which I presume is different from US law. Don't think that would be relevant to the original question.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"RichD" wrote in message news:30f8c3d5-2deb-402c-9620-2f8dd18a2706n@googlegroups.com...

On June 20, Barry Gold wrote:

It comes down to a basic principle of privacy: what happens in private
is private and not to be invaded. What happens in public is public. If
it can be seen from the street or public walkway, it's public.

What if a house has a digital code door lock, and one places
a camera on the sidewalk, which can zoom in to the lock's
keypad, watching as the home owner punches it?

--
Rich

My understanding is that a camera that records things that a human can also
see from a position off the person's property is perfectly legal. Thus a camera mounted on the house across the street from me that can see my door
and people coming and going just as a human could from the same position is legal. But once you add a zoom capability that can zoom in on details that
a human eye wouldn't pickup, that becomes an invasion of privacy.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Roy" wrote in message news:u80b98$lj7$1@dont-email.me...

On 7/3/2023 10:03 PM, RichD wrote:

On June 25, Bernie Cosell wrote:

A related question: is it legal to shoot down [or otherwise
disable/destroy] a drone flying over your property?

Was it legal for the Pakistan air force to shoot down the helicopter
carrying the commando squad, sent to whack Osama, in 2011?

(assuming they had spotted that bird)

--
Rich

Was it legal for the Soviets to shoot down Powers U-2?

Was it legal for the US to shoot down the Chinese balloon?

Legal by who?

I'm sure the Gary Powers incident was "legal" under Soviet law at the time, given their apparent disdain for Americans and the fact he was clearly
spying. The more interesting question would be if a similar manned plane
had been sent by the Russians over US territory, would the US be justified
in shooting it down? Unless the plane were headed toward a building a la
the 9/11 crew or creating an obvious jeopardy to humans, I'm not sure what
the US law would be with regard to shooting down a manned but apparently unarmed aircraft.

In the case of the Chinese balloon, the US made a reasonable inference that
the object had been sent for spying purposes, it was clearly unmanned and
the government waited until they thought it could be brought down without jeopardizing life or property.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/4/2023 8:16 AM, Rick wrote:

I'm sure the Gary Powers incident was "legal" under Soviet law at the
time, given their apparent disdain for Americans and the fact he was
clearly spying.  The more interesting question would be if a similar
manned plane had been sent by the Russians over US territory, would the
US be justified in shooting it down?  Unless the plane were headed
toward a building a la the 9/11 crew or creating an obvious jeopardy to humans, I'm not sure what the US law would be with regard to shooting
down a manned but apparently unarmed aircraft.

From the wiki
"U.S. officials claimed that the U-2 had been conducting a routine
weather flight but experienced a malfunction of its oxygen delivery
system that had caused the pilot to black out and drift over Soviet air
space. On May 7, however, Khrushchev revealed that Powers was alive and uninjured, and clearly had not blacked out from oxygen deprivation.
Moreover, the Soviets recovered the plane mostly intact, including the
aerial camera system. It became instantly apparent that the weather
survey story was a cover-up for a spy"

The Soviets knew they were shooting at an unarmed manned aircraft

In the case of the Chinese balloon, the US made a reasonable inference
that the object had been sent for spying purposes, it was clearly
unmanned and the government waited until they thought it could be
brought down without jeopardizing life or property.

--

The US knew they were shooting at an unarmed unmanned aircraft.

If a Chinese version of the SR-71 were to fly across the US, would the
US shoot it down?

There still is the "Open Skies" treaty although both the US and Russia withdrew

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/openskies#:~:text=Signed%20March%2024%2C%201992%2C%20the,on%20military%20forces%20and%20activities.

Signed March 24, 1992, the Open Skies Treaty permits each state-party to conduct short-notice, unarmed, reconnaissance flights over the others'
entire territories to collect data on military forces and activities.

In 2009, the United States flew a total of thirteen flights, twelve over
Russia and one over Ukraine.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/4/2023 8:17 AM, Rick wrote:

My understanding is that a camera that records things that a human can
also see from a position off the person's property is perfectly legal.
Thus a camera mounted on the house across the street from me that can
see my door and people coming and going just as a human could from the
same position is legal.  But once you add a zoom capability that can
zoom in on details that a human eye wouldn't pickup, that becomes an
invasion of privacy.

--

Check out Moore vs US. Issue: Whether long-term police use of a
surveillance camera targeted at a person’s home and curtilage is a
Fourth Amendment search.

The case concerns an eight month surveillance of the exterior of a house
via a pole camera

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/moore-v-united-states-2/

Supreme court declined to review

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/3/2023 10:45 PM, Roy wrote:

On 7/3/2023 10:03 PM, RichD wrote:

On June 25, Bernie Cosell wrote:

A related question: is it legal to shoot down [or otherwise
disable/destroy] a drone flying over your property?

Was it legal for the Pakistan air force to shoot down the helicopter
carrying the commando squad, sent to whack Osama, in 2011?

(assuming they had spotted that bird)

--
Rich

Was it legal for the Soviets to shoot down Powers U-2?

Was it legal for the US to shoot down the Chinese balloon?

Legal by who?

Legal by International Law, which is a web of treaties dealing with
various matters.

I would say, yes. A country has a right to control its airspace, and
that includes shooting down military incursions. However, it is
considered better to first warn them and (if they will comply) escort
them to the border. Otherwise you get embarrassments like KAL 007, which probably cost the USSR considerable face.


--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)