Get orf the air over moi land Irish farmer roars at drones A farmer in County Tipperary has declared war on drones, claiming criminals are using the buzz-some devices to scope out rural areas for burglaries. Robert O’Shea, from near Thurles, launched his broadside after Irish police declared that shooting at drones was illegal, the Irish Independent reported. "Gun licences are …
No, I believe in the UK, when you see burglars or home invaders coming you are required to retreat to a "safe" room and lock yourself in. Then you need to call the cops and hope they get there before something really bad happens, like the bad guys burning down your house with you in it, or raping your daughter who's just arrived back from school. This might almost work when the cops are nearby, like in a crowded city, but the wait will pretty long out in lonely Limerick.
If however you even threaten them with a gun, YOU become the primary criminal and will feel the full weight of the Law, assuming you are still alive.
And it is the people why buy into this system that point fingers at the USA and accuse us of being trigger happy cowboys. It's true we prefer to exercise self-defense and not wait for theoretical help to arrive to save us. We also view people who think that way as deluded sheep, bleating for the sheep dogs to come and save them from the wolves. Sometimes that even works!
Holy crap, you are the biggest pussy in the world, Johnny. I served under Reagan during peacetime, shot every type of weapon you can for regular Army types, and I own not one fucking gun! Why? Because I'm not scared of the "hoards of Muslims entering the country to do evil" because White Christian Terrorists are must more plentiful here in what used to be a free country. I had an asshole break into my home in 2009, yes a white idiot just like you, and could have offed the fucker, but I did the right thing; I cornered him, plied him with some free beer, and called the cops, and they did their job. No problem. I suspect you would have pissed your giant pants had you not had an uzi in both hands and some grenades, but then that's what pussies require for safety: guns, lots and lots of guns and zero training.
John, you are a gunnut pussy. We all know it now. :P
What's the UK got to do with anything? You do know that places like Tipperary and Limerick aren't in the UK, right?
Anyway, the law in the Republic of Ireland is that you can use "reasonable force":
http://www.thejournal.ie/new-law-not-a-licence-to-kill-says-minister-327010-Jan2012/
This post has been deleted by its author
Holy hell John. Look, I know all your comment is saying is that you're a big man with a gun who don't need no help dealing with all the scum of the earth, but jeez....
First up, this story is not in the UK. Although the legal codes are pretty close, and to a USian it can get confusing.
But even assuming that, it take about ten seconds googling to find out how the actual law is applied, so I've no idea where the utter bollocks you're spouting comes from. If you don't know, feel free to ask. And if you just want to say "In Texas, I'd have shot them all and buried them in the desert" just skip to that, rather than lying about the law.
Here's the summery from the CPS
https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html
In short, you can use reasonable force to secure your property, and reasonable force to defend yourself and others. This includes using a weapon, and is based on your perception of threat. So in your example, arson/attempted murder, home invasion or rape would almost certainly allow you to use a firearm in defense. For securing your property I would expect that threatening by pointing would be OK, but no shooting. For trespass alone, pointing is probably over the top. You should still call the cops first, but you're not legally prevented from taking care of yourself.
If someone gets killed or injured, then it seems reasonable that people get investigated. The CPS in general will not be prosecuting you over and above the intruder for threatening them. Even if you kill them, you may well escape prosecution. However if you set out to harm them, by not calling the cops, setting a trap, or harming them after they have been subdued, then you could (IMHO should) be prosecuted.
The perception of the US as trigger happy is that there seem to be an awful lot of people being shot. As compared to say Canada, which also has high gun ownership, lots of rural areas etc.
Big John is actually deluded enough to believe his own BS, he's put similar shite on here often enough.
Using Big John's view of reality I can also state the rules followed by burglars in the USA.
If you wish to burgle a home in the USA because you are desperate to feed your habit, then you must go fully armed with rapid fire weapon. This is necessary because it is likely that any occupant of the home will be armed. So go in hard, shoot first and take no prisoners.
Big J, American Dad of Texas keeps a .45 under his pillow and a short stock pump action 12 gauge on his headboard, so nail him first before he wakes up.
Big John you are very wrong. I've no idea who you've been listening to but they've seriously misled you.
"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large." (Palmer v R, [1971] AC 814), S3 Criminal Law Act 1967
S76(5(a)) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 allows householders to use disproportionate force when defending themselves against intruders into the home.
Wolfetone: This didn't happen did it? Firstly a Drone is useless as a spying tool. No zoom, and trying to record video of inside a room from outside of the property generally shows you a dark window in a wall. Nobody uses Drones for titilation / spying on girlfriends. Despite what some people claim, it just DOESN'T happen.
Secondly, how did you find the drone operator in order to re-align his jaw? I very much doubt you followed the drone all the way to the operator, running through brick walls, leaping over tall hedges at upto 35mph in your relentless pursuit for anti-perv justice.
You should add this to the beginning of your post:
*** Anti-drone bullshit story alert ***
Picture the scene.
The flat was on the 3rd story of an apartment block, which consisted of 7 floors. Across the road from there is a park.
I go in to speak to my girlfriend who's getting changed, I look at the window and I see that dirty drone hovering outside the window. I say nothing, I go to the other room and look out the window. Mr.Pervert is standing in the park, looking at the drone with the controls.
I go downstairs, across the road, the drone has moved away from our window but only up to the floor above. I ask him if it's his drone, he said yes, I thump him.
You can remove your bullshit alert now.
Then you went back into your girl friend and in sign language (because she is deaf if she didn't hear a noise like the loudest/angriest swarm of bees ever outside the window) you tell her what you have just done and that you are expecting the police to come round and drag you away to face an affray, assault and ABH charge.
Two words, right and yeah. In whatever order.
Since the local government gets quite upset about locals using firearms to defend themselves or their properties, from humans or things controlled by humans, it is the perfect opportunity to get creative with getting rid of criminal drones in a discrete manner.
Just think of all the fun and inventive ways you could think of to dispatch criminal drones (and possibly make the drone operators stay away).
Fun no matter what your field of hobby is, so many ways to get rid of the little buggers, it could even make for a great new TV series.
No idea why people down voted your comments on toffs illegally poisoning / shooting / trapping birds of prey (nice & arms length by their gamekeepers).
Especially as the mysterious hen harrier incident at Sandringham is currently in the headlines (when I say headlines I mean once you get past the same old politics, celeb, business news most media pushes and look at "minor" stories that really should get more of attention as protected species killed with impunity on her Ma's estates year in, year out) but UK media dislikes stories showing Royal Family in a bad light)
It worries me that some birds of prey are going to end up injured or worse due to idiots using them to bring down drones. Before you ask a raptor to stick its legs in the drone's rotors you should do a pain level test first, I suggest stick your tongue in the rotors and only sending a bird after the drone if you can still speak ok afterwards.
Just think of all the fun and inventive ways you could think of to dispatch criminal drones
Hang one or two lengths of lightweight chain from the bottom of your drone, perhaps with some fishing weights attached. Then hover over the offending drone and let the chain destroy its propellers.
Problem solved, plus you get a free (albeit damaged) drone. If you attack from above and behind, your drone is out of his camera's field of view. They'll never know what hit 'em, unless they're sending back real time audio and can hear your approach.
Aaargh, matey. Off with his propellers!
"Pizza, inevitably, is not far behind."
Do I have to dig through my old posts to find the reference?
OK, here it is:
http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/dominos-tests-delivery-pizza-remote-controlled-drone-150259
Title: Domino's Tests Delivery of Pizza by Remote-Controlled Drone: The DomiCopter takes flight
Date: June 12, 2013
However fun and challenging, the trouble with a shoot-down policy is that the drone is likely already considered by the operator to be expendable, and shoot-down 'success' simply sends the miscreant to another potential target, with a different drone. The longer-term strategy should be to build in a large disincentive to anyone considering this type of recon and theft; as there won't be many people willing to steal in this way, the cost of doing so has to be borne by those who are--and seen to have been borne by them--in order to prevent the method from moving into the mainstream. Perhaps a honey pot, but one created after the fact of the recon having been spotted (to work around the get-out-of-charges because entrapment business).
In thinly-populated areas, the most economical means of spotting such drone-based casing is to use camera-based security. It will devolve into a technological cat-and-mouse game, though. Unfortunately, too, the net effect of the application of video cameras in defense against remotely-controlled video cameras is to create a hyperactive-self-surveillance society.
"How accurate can you be against a moving target at anything over 20 feet?"
If they're aircraft, then where the fuck are the pilot licenses of the drone operators, and why aren't they filing flight plans like every other fucking AIRCRAFT pilot has to do?
If they aren't aircraft, then they're pests, and should be allowed to be shot down whenever and where-ever they trespass.
Needs a good anti-drone system. Bird-trapping system, net thrower, something "legal". If nothing else, he can pay for the system by selling used drones. "Slightly bruised".
Even with best intentions, training, equipment, conscientious staff, ..., your "local" police cannot "protect" you unless they are actually "local" - say within 20 feet. If they are not able to stop the miscreant _at_the_time_ of the attack, they are only a nebulous background presence threatening some possible future punishment. Any call for help with a response time greater then single digit seconds means I am responsible for the defense of me and mine.
I'm sure there'll be a way round this for the farmers, involving putting up a notice under the Occupiers' Liability Act section 4(2)(h) disclaiming any responsibility towards trespassers. Well it works for everything else, or at least you'd think so going by the number of such signs around the place.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
