Kentucky Man Who Shot Drone Out Of The Sky With Shotgun Arrested; Faces Two Felony Charges
Aug 1, 2015
Tiffany Mueller
Tiffany Mueller is a photographer and content strategist based in Hawi, Hawaii. Her work has been shared by top publications like The New York Times, Adobe, and others.
Share:
On July 26, 2015, William H. Merideth was enjoying the afternoon with his daughters in the backyard of his Hillview, Kentucky home when they noticed a drone flying around the neighborhood. When the drone finally made it’s way over Merideth’s property, he was armed and ready to shoot the device out of the sky, which he did with a shotgun he procured from his house as the drone was making it’s way over.
He was promptly confronted by the drone owner/operator, David Boggs, who ended up calling the police on Merideth. Merideth was arrested and charged with first degree wanton endangerment and criminal mischief for firing a shotgun into the air. He was released the following day.
“Well, I came out and it was down by the neighbor’s house, about 10 feet off the ground, looking under their canopy that they’ve got in their back yard. I went and got my shotgun and I said, ‘I’m not going to do anything unless it’s directly over my property…Within a minute or so, here it came. It was hovering over top of my property, and I shot it out of the sky,” Meridith told WDRB.
Not unexpectedly, Boggs has an much different version of what went down. “The bottom line is we didn’t do it. We didn’t hover, we didn’t go down, we didn’t do any of that. There’s no way I’m going to fly below the trees the second day I owned it,” said Boggs. He also noted that the memory card, which contained the video footage of the incident was missing when he recovered his mangled device from Meridith. Meridith says he has no idea what happened to card.
Though video from the flight in question would most likely have provided plenty of evidence to see what really took place, it seems like that is out of the question. Boggs did, however, share his drone’s flight path and tracking information in the news clip below, which appears to support his version of what happened.
Despite the drone tracking video Boggs shared with WDRB in the video clip above, Meridith insists the drone was flying at low altitudes, telling a local news station, “He didn’t just fly over. If he had been moving and just kept moving, that would have been one thing — but when he come directly over our heads, and just hovered there, I felt like I had the right.”
In the state of Kentucky, wanton endangerment in the first degree and criminal mischief in the first degree, are each considered class D felonies. According to WDRB, Merideth does not plan to refute the charges and could be facing a fine up to $10,000 and up to 5 years in state prison for each count.
Personally, I believe Boggs’ account of the story. But, that being said, I understand how Merideth could find a drone hovering over his house–even at 250′ altitude–to be an invasion of privacy or a safety hazard, though, considering he fired a gun into the air in the middle of a neighborhood, I’m not entirely sure if safety was his main priority.
There seems to be an even split of proponents and opponents when it comes to these sort of stories. Judging by some of the internet commentary made in relation to this latest drone vs. shotgun debacle, we’re all still pretty divided. What’s your opinion, should Merideth be facing a two felony charges (assuming he is found guilty) or do you think the punishment is unfair?
Tiffany Mueller
Tiffany Mueller is a photographer and content strategist based in Hawi, Hawaii. Her work has been shared by top publications like The New York Times, Adobe, and others.
Related Posts
Driver charged with felony assault for threatening photographer with his vehicle
Photographer Arrested On Charges of Filming 16-Year-Old Girl in Dressing Room
French Photojournalist faces criminal charges over image of Paris attack victim
Student faces spying charges in Egypt after taking a photo from an airplane
Join the Discussion
DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.
34 responses to “Kentucky Man Who Shot Drone Out Of The Sky With Shotgun Arrested; Faces Two Felony Charges”
I’d definitely would ask for a jury trial. All he needs is to get 1 juror to see things his way.
Yeah, seems like the odds would be better for Merideth with a jury (or try to settle out of court and avoid the risk of losing $20k and 10 years of his life.
Has anybody checked to see the range on the guy’s shotgun? If it has a 100 foot range or 1,000 foot range that helps a little. I don’t think a shotgun fires “that” far accurately.
Meredith said he used a “birdshot” type shell in his shotgun (I’m not sure model of shotgun he had). According to this website, a birdshot shell has a range of 246′–though, I can’t personally testify as to whether or not that is accurate. I’m no firearms experts.
Hmm. That gives him enough range to have shot it from hight in the air (or really low too). So, not completely helpful.
I kind of feel like if it’s close enough to be shot from my property, you just might be too close.
agreed
Hmmm, if it was bird shot I’m not sure there is any danger of it falling on people. Those are the size of BBs and while they may hurt they likely won’t break skin on the way down. Duck hunters in a heavily hunted area have bird shot shower down on them quite often. The most danger is to the eyes. However, it is still a firearm discharge in a populated area. Dangerous or not the law is the law.
The figure of 246′ can be kind of arbitrary. “Maximum range” and “maximum EFFECTIVE range” can be two different numbers. Contributing factors included the angle at which the gun was shot, the gauge of the gun, and the barrel choke (which affects the “spray pattern” of the projectiles).
Could he have shot it down at a height over 200′? Very possibly. Was it hovering 10′ over his head? Doubtful… At a 10-foot distance, there’s little chance that there would have even been a memory card left for him to extract.
Let’s not also forget that the drone also has delicate moving parts. Yes, very little damage to the rotors can bring a drone down in quick succession. In that case, the accuracy can be relatively low, and especially the “effective range” can be much lower.
It doesn’t sound like he is being punished for harming a drone. Rather, he is being punished for firing a shotgun into the air in a populated area. Though 5 years in prison for that sounds a bit harsh, we certainly DO want to discourage people from firing in the air — those pellets do come back down, and in largely unpredictable places…
From my understanding, the wanton endangerment charge is for firing the gun into the air. The criminal mischief charge is a result of the damage he did the drone, which was in excess of $1000. Had it been under $1000, the charge would have been lowered to a misdemeanor.
We need to find a more clever way to disable drones that are being a nuisance. There probably is some electronic way to interfere with their communications.Yeah the shotgun is simple but you run afoul of other laws (like you can’t fire within 1/4-mile of an occupied building and various other city codes).
I think this article is a better talking point for the need for gun control. There was not a physical threat and he is shooting a gun and lying about it being 10′ off the ground. Then he states he was going to shoot the owner if he stepped on his property. Come on. Guns should be a last resort.
The need for gun control huh? There are already thousands of gun laws. This guy violated one or two and he will pay for that. I love how the first words out of the gun controllers’ mouths are more laws for the 100,000,000 gun owners who didn’t commit the crime.
You’re still feeling okay with this guy owning a gun? I don’t think I want rules to affect owners of guns. I want rules to affect who owns guns and when they take possession of them. There is a difference.
Shouldn’t we have a way to disable citizens guns when they their a public nuisance, or you know a part of a mass killing?
No, you want a way to bring a flying object crashing to the ground uncontrolled when you find something to be a nuisance.
Short of taking everyone’s guns away, there is no way to be certain who will misuse them. Usually when you misuse a gun, your gun rights are lost, so I don’t know what you are talking about on your second point. I don’t know what you are talking about on the 3rd point. Guess it depends on how you define nuisance. I think drones are cool, so I’m Ok with them. But I recently read a story where a guy kept hovering his drone over his neighbors daughter when she was sun bathing. That’s a nuisance, but I’m not going to shoot it down! If I could electronically disable it, I would though.
You don’t seem to see the real problem with your “we need more gun control” mindset. We already have enough laws–afterall the guy who shot this drone down found that there were plenty of laws available to charge him with.
But let me draw an analogy using your thinking. For the last few years, I have been reading a lot of stories about photographers being harassed or outright prohibited from taking pictures of buildings. The thinking goes: bad guys sometimes take pictures of buildings that they intend to do bad things in (or to). People using your logic say that we ought to prohibit all photographers from taking pics of buildings. That’s crazy, but it’s happening all over the world.
I think you are missing an understanding (or ignoring) the concept of a ‘prior restraint’. Prior restraints are bad for good people because the latter effectively get punished or prohibited from doing things as punishment for someone else’s misdeed even though they have no intention of misdeed. They just want a picture of the building where they are visiting.
@Steve West – ‘I recently read a story where a guy kept hovering his drone over his neighbors daughter when she was sun bathing. That’s a nuisance, but I’m not going to shoot it down! If I could electronically disable it, I would though.”
It is brilliant how you see shooting down an aircraft with a shotgun as bad but you don’t see that disabling an aircraft’s electronics effects the same outcome, a crash and is just as bad. That would still be against the law and you would be sharing (if convicted) the same punishment as our hapless homeowner.
Yup, we should also ban electronic-counter-measures to eliminate you as a threat along with the shotguns. The right to own guns is one thing but when a populace demonstrate a misuse of those rights we the people need to reevaluate that freedom! Remember at one time it was a within the law to own black people for the purpose of slavery and it took a revolution to get those laws changed!
Well, since everything is illegal, there is nothing you can do about it. Let the drones hover over your daughter all day then. That’s brilliant.
Hey, don’t get me wrong, I actually agree with you and drones (as we have seen) can be a ‘nuisance’. However the response in this case is inappropriate in so much as being against the law. And because it is against the law it would bring far more trouble than it’s worth. So that begs the question: Well, what would be an appropriate response? Heaven forbid we can’t think of one …
I guess you could go the restraining order route. 50 years ago, you simply would have punched the operator in the face–but that’s illegal too now…
First, I appreciate a real, non mud slinging response. Thank you.
My point to disable weapons was just a counter to your statement.
I’m sorry if someone has to go through a little ‘prior restraint’ if it prevents the wrong people from getting armed. Background checks are a no brainer. I acknowledge we could only do this moving forward and have no hope of trying to retroactively ‘qualify’ each of the current gun owners, though in a perfect world…
I genuinely cannot see how someone is against enhancing background checks. Like the saying goes, “If you have nothing to hide what are you afraid of?”
There are way too many gun tragedies in this country and I for one would rather say we did our part in trying to stop them than doing nothing and letting it continue. Do you know what kind of training and qualification I had to go through before being handed a weapon in the Army? Why is it that some random Joe can walk into a gun show and walk out with weapon same day? We all operate motor vehicles that can easily kill and we all have to prove our ability and responsibility.
I understand it will take a change in mindset but it is one we need to start immediately.
Mud slinging serves no purpose. I appreciate your measured responses too :) Perhaps before guns, you should address cars. Too many people die or are maimed in them each year–a lot more than guns (if you subtract suicides). But I say no to prior restraints (e.g. gun free zones). Background checks do not create a prior restraint for me as my permit to carry gives me instant buying since the background check has already been done previously. We are finding that background checks are not a panacea (as recent events have shown very well), and when it really comes down to it, they do violate the constitution. Freedom is a tough thing, and not all have the stomach for it.
But I digress from the photography aspect of this forum so I will stop now. Cheers.
Well, he’s currently facing 2 felony charges. If convicted of either, he won’t be allowed to own a firearm at any point in his future.
Electronic interference is illegal. The FCC will have a real problem with that. And who gets to decide if it is being a nuisance?
How many times have you been bothered by one? Most of the talk about drones is hyperbole and one up brinkmanship. The videos taken from them are from a wide angle camera and are not made for spying. In fact, people are hard to make out in the videos taken at 100 feet. Reality needs to enter the discussion here and not emotional talk based on untruths.
Mr. Meredith is nothing more than the embodiment of the the cranky old man in your neighborhood (there always is one) who yelled at you to stay off his lawn as you walked by as a kid.
It coulda fall on someone else. Plus, you dont destroy a car someone else parked on your driveway, you get them towed away at the guy’s expense.
Some FAA Rules apparently apply to drones too..we shall see. If the Feds come for this case…the shooter will be in a bit deeper perhaps. A felony conviction will change the shooters life in new and exciting ways. A water hose would have brought the drone down if it was THAT low…and , the shooter apparently has the memory card , having removed it prior to returning the wreckage to the owner.Sure would love to see those images on the memory card. Shooter is getting his 15 minutes of fame for sure..hope its all he expects it to be. Lawyer will make some good money on this too !
Love it! If turning to a weapon is your first reaction to a non-physical threat, you shouldn’t be armed
The drone owner should check the flight videos on the ipad. By default, the app is set to record the 720p downlink to a cache on the ipad (up to 2 gb). This should still have a copy of the video.
Very true! He needs to check his phone or iPad.
Merideth extracting the video memory card then tossing it was clever, but he was too stupid to realize that drone has an on-board “black box” that recorded the drone’s altitude, speed, direction and exact GPS location. Merideth also fired a shotgun straight up in the air, in an urban setting no less, which is pretty much against the law nationwide. And at 250′ altitude, people look like ants, so the excuse he used that he was simply protecting his sunbathing daughter’s honor is a joke. It is a violation of Federal law to shoot at an aircraft, the FAA considers drones as aircraft, he could be facing 20 years in Federal prison. Those of you who use this incident as a springboard for your anti-gun agenda, go away. Merideth needs to go to jail if for no other reason than for sheer arrogance and stupidity.
I wonder if Mr. Meredith would shoot someone for taking a picture of him with a cell phone? Or with a camera? Isn’t his privacy being invaded? I wonder if Mr. Meredith would shoot down an airplane if it flew over his property? Where is the line for him? Is it 10 feet of altitude? Is it 100 feet? Is it 400 feet? Most of these issues have been settled in court before. And Mr. Meredith is clearly in the wrong if the drone was at 200 feet over his property. He does not have a right to shoot it down. He does not own the airspace above his house. The US Supreme Court found that a landowner “owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land.” So 200 feet above would clearly not occupy or use in connection with his land.
Also, I think it would be wise to sue Mr. Meredith in civil court to recover the cost of the drone as well. Preserve the flight data and the video. It would be an open and shut case.
http://gizmodo.com/is-it-ok-to-shoot-down-your-neighbors-drone-1718055028
This idiot was so concerned about the drone, yet he didn’t give a shit about firing a shotgun in a residential area.
If people were injured from his shotgun blast, what would be his excuse? Self-defense?
Cali passed a privacy law in January, the rest of the states will soon follow. Just don’t use a shotgun.
http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab_2301-2350/ab_2306_bill_20140930_chaptered.pdf
There are net guns, and air cannons that can legally take down trespassing drones safely, as well.
Drone have to stay under 400 feet, and above 83 feet at all times, plus never fly over people. With a camera, they are supposed to stay 500 feet away from anywhere that has ‘a reasonable expectation of privacy.” , unless they have permission from EVERYONE being filmed.
P.S. Merideth (and his neighbors) do have photographs, (some released publicly) of the drone, directly over his house, their garden, ect