In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

At least one US case was thrown out after a homeowner shot down a
drone
due to invasion of privacy. That sets precedence.

that was because it was creeping on his teenage daughter by the pool.

The ruling cited privacy. What that privacy is is irrelevant.

it's not irrelevant.

Of course it's irrelevant. Privacy means nobody should know what the
substance of what was private. The father's motivations may be narrower
- but the judge's ruling is what was relevant: privacy.

then why not shoot down *any* plane that overflys someone's property?

where i live, small planes often fly over houses at around 2000 feet
(the lowest i've seen is 1700 feet).

You indeed have amazing powers! You can tell the difference between
an airplane's altitude of 1,700 feet and 2,000 feet! Without being in
the cockpit and observing the altimeter.

more of your uninformed spew, as expected.

there's no need to be in the cockpit to find out the altitude of planes
flying overhead. that information is broadcast for anyone to receive.

you claim to have been a pilot. familiarity with avionics is something
an actual pilot would have known. you must not have been a pilot.

Actually, small planes can legally fly lower than 1,700 feet. In a
congested area, the minimum is 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle
within a 2,000 foot radius of the airplane, or 500 feet in a
non-congested area. Restrictions and exceptions may apply.

the altitude isn't the issue. invasion of privacy is.

if you creep on someone laying out by the pool, you aren't going to get
very far by saying "i was flying above the faa minimum."