Reply to post:

Anti-peeping-tom drone law nixed in California

Michael Wojcik Silver badge

Anyone who's accused in print of the crime, but didn't actually do it, may have been libeled. (If they're accused in speech, they'd be slandered.)

Oh, did you mean who is liable? That's probably a more interesting question. IANAL, but I'd think a creative prosecutor could go after both parties - the drone controller (for trespass and/or creating an attractive nuisance) and the shooter (for causing injury, destruction of private property, and possibly other things, such as illegal discharge of a firearm, depending on circumstances).

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon