[dontbenebby]

>What's the problem here? If a drone is flying around you're not exactly allowed to interfere with it anyway?

Why do drones get more protection than people? If a person trespasses on my property and makes me fear for my life I can use force if I'm in a stand your ground state.

A drone may contain bombs or weapons, and a drone that crashes down on you can kill you[1]. It's already violating the law via trespassing, and I'd be willing to bet a thing will get less protection than a living being from a judge.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/nyregion/remote-controlle...

[cronix]

The difference is the drone isn't "on" your property, so technically not "trespassing," unless it lands. Airspace (from the top of your grass on up) is controlled by the FAA and it's a federal crime to interfere with an aircraft of any type. You don't own the air, only real property.

[parrellel]

And yet Robert Duvall lost his case when an angry neighbor shot down hos trespassing drone. No federal charges there.

[rocqua]

The issue is that most forms of interference (shooting it, jamming it) have a tendency to make the drone fall out of the sky. That is rather dangerous.