vikingofficial:thenuanceddebater: fry-score: vikingofficial: kaijuno: wake up babe new sport just dr
vikingofficial:thenuanceddebater: fry-score: vikingofficial: kaijuno: wake up babe new sport just dropped Air rights in America are 500ft above the tallest building in urban areas. Below that is considered the property of the owner. The police are effectively on their property without a warrant. Shoot them down and file a lawsuit immediately Rebloging for the legal solution to a problem that has only been adressed physically until now. Absolutely DO NOT DO THIS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. I’m not sure what @vikingofficial’s legal qualifications are here, but they have given bad advice based on some Supreme Court precedents, some quick reading, and some legal opinions that I know. I’m going to try and correct some misinformation. TL;DR: You don’t have property rights under 500 feet above your property–that’s an estimation without legal support and with quite a few things against it. Supreme Court cases have held that manned aircraft at 400 feet were constitutionally fine to observe with the naked eye under the Fourth Amendment, and the FAA says that drones are fine recreationally with a ceiling of 400 feet. Shooting down drones is likely violative of both federal and state law. DON’T DO IT. Keep reading Hi @thenuanceddebater I’ve reblogged this numerous times with an update admitting to it being false based on what I had been previously taught, I admitted to that and updated the information after having researched thoroughly. Thank you for your legal advice put more succinctly than I would have, but please reword this to be less accusatory. Reblogging this because I have great respect for people who admit when they are wrong. As someone who frequently calls for people to correct their information, it would be remiss for me to not respond to and to not show someone who did the very thing I am asking for. I can only find one correction on your blog, but I’ll link it here for anyone who is curious (and to have a complete record). Honestly, that probably did come off a little more accusatorily than I would have liked given the fact that it feels like I read a bad legal take every single day on this website, but it was also a legitimate question. As someone who is actually involved in the legal profession, though granted as a law student, I’m always curious and genuinely asking what people’s experiences are with the legal system. Sure, sometimes you have armchair commentators, but sometimes you’re dealing with people who went to jail, or who had relatives who were convicted of the thing they are talking about, etc. and those people can give more than just a quick examination of the case law or reading some other legal theorists. If you had some of those experiences, I didn’t want to discredit your lived experience with pure legal theory and interpretation–hence why I did provide some possible distinctions in the “read more” version of my post, as well as why the conclusory portions were all opinion. Regardless, I’m glad you did more research and corrected some of the misinformation, and I hope that the information I provided was helpful in either (1) teaching you the reasons for why things are the way they are, (2) reinforcing your newfound knowledge, or (3) giving a new perspective on why trying to make precedent in this area might not be the best idea. If it wasn’t, then I’m sorry you had to read my nonsense and that you were hurt by it. Regardless, have a great weekend and a wonderful Juneteenth tomorrow if you’re in the US! -- source link
#nuance#response