[maxerickson]

The article says they arrested him on some charges related to the gun and criminal mischief. It also says In addition the criminal charges, the owner may choose to pursue financial compensation for the destroyed drone.

So I wonder how you decided they arrested him for simple property damage? Do you mean to obliquely dismiss the other charges?

[JoeAltmaier]

Whoa there Max; as I wrote above, it was just a passing thought. Didn't mean anything but that.

Also around where I live, shooting your shotgun isn't any kind of offence. The whole article smells of hoax.

[maxerickson]

That's fine. My point was that he was not arrested for property damage.

If you want to rephrase it and say How come discharging a shotgun over property you don't own is criminal when all it does is a little bit of property damage?, then I'm not left with anything to be pedantic about.

[JoeAltmaier]

Thanks. I noticed there's nothing in the article that says where the shotgun was discharged; nor where the drone was when it was damaged. Also, magically the drone owner was able to point out where the shotgun was discharged. That is notoriously difficult to do - echoes, shotgun noise similar to car backfires etc.

I think its all made up.

[maxerickson]

I'm comfortable with the assumption that the drone operator was close enough to the drone to discern betwixt a gun discharge and other loud bangs. It does say they were focusing the drone on a house under construction (and even if they were flying all over the neighborhood, they would still likely end up keeping a short distance to the drone).

Edit: I'm also comfortable with the assumption that the police took the location of the firing and such into account when they made the arrest.