• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

The Right to Shoot at Pilots

Phil1

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Mar 3, 2009
465
7
Minot N.D.
Shotgun-wielding homeowner acquitted in paraglider clash
Posted on May 17, 2014
Jefferson Robbins
The Wenatchee World

EAST WENATCHEE — The Orondo man who admitting firing a shotgun to warn a paraglider away from his Box Canyon Road property was found not guilty Thursday on a charge of unlawfully displaying a weapon.

A three-man, three-woman Douglas County District Court jury found Stephen B. Flinn, 66, not guilty on the gross misdemeanor charge, which could have yielded up to 364 days in jail and a $5,000 fine.

Flinn saw the paraglider, Matt Senior of Issaquah, sail past his living room window July 2. He told Douglas County sheriff’s deputies he emerged from his home carrying a 12-gauge shotgun and fired it into the air “to get his attention.”

Flinn told Senior, then hovering 60 to 80 feet overhead, to get away from his property. Senior, an 11-year veteran paraglider, swore at Flinn and threatened to come to his home and assault him. Flinn fired another round into the air as Senior departed.

Both shots were aimed away from Senior and his paragliding canopy, which led to the misdemeanor charge of displaying a weapon rather than a felony charge of assault. Senior told deputies and testified on the stand he heard three shots total.

The jury debated for more than an hour, at one point asking Judge Judith McCauley if they had to give a unanimous verdict.

In his summation, Flinn’s attorney, John Brangwin of Wenatchee, said other paragliders had passed over Flinn’s property that day, but sailed far higher. He called Flinn’s confrontation of Senior a defense of his property, and invoked the spectre of drones and “black helicopters” spying on citizens’ private lives.

“We can debate whether he’s a trespasser or not, because his feet are not on the ground,” Brangwin told the jury, referring to Senior. “But at what point do you have the right to protect your home?”

He also questioned why Senior wasn’t charged for his verbal threat to Flinn, calling it “a direct threat to my client for which he’ll face no consequence.”

Douglas County Deputy Prosecutor Jason Mercer said Senior’s threat was made “in the heat of the moment,” after he was alarmed by Flinn’s first gunshot and saw Flinn carrying a firearm and yelling from the ground below him.

Flinn later told deputies he’d been having problems with gliders “trespassing on his property,” according to police reports. But Mercer noted Flinn never called police to complain.

“What he chose to do instead was march out of his house with a loaded shotgun and fire a shot into the air,” Mercer told the jury. It was Senior who called deputies after he landed safely at Chelan Falls.

Flinn did not face any threat from Senior or other fliers, and acted only out of irritation, Mercer said. Senior could not be reached for comment Friday morning.

Flinn’s home, built on a Columbia River bluff in 2012, lies along a popular flight path for paragliders taking off from Chelan Butte, across the river in Chelan County. The thermal drafts that rise near the cliff face allow fliers to regain altitude

Mercer said Friday the verdict doesn’t appear to establish any “zone of privacy” involving airspace above a person’s home.

“If any kind of incidents like this happen again, I think calling the sheriff is the right thing to do for both parties,” he said. “It’s not up to me whether there’s a legitimate privacy interest there. I think that’s up to the Legislature.”
http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/yh...homeowner-acquitted-in-paraglider-clash#print
 
Your property includes the air above it. Shooting at this guy may not have been the smartest thing in the world, but it is trespassing none the less.

As for a drone, fair game.


Posted via Tapatalk HD for iPad
 
WRONG, I can tell you are not a licensed pilot. The air above your property does not belong to you, it belongs to the govt.. And this is settled law. Are you able to charge Air Lines a fee for right of way? NO. Do a little research, you'll find, very quickly airspace rules and regulation in the US, along with the history of their establishment.
 
WRONG, I can tell you are not a licensed pilot. The air above your property does not belong to you, it belongs to the govt.. And this is settled law. Are you able to charge Air Lines a fee for right of way? NO. Do a little research, you'll find, very quickly airspace rules and regulation in the US, along with the history of their establishment.

Actually, not only am i a pilot i am a licensed real estate broker. let me be more specific. The air above your proprty that the homeowner can reasonably use. When dealing with the upper airspace where airplanes usually fly you are correct (Class A,B,C,D and E airspace) However in the area of class G which is uncontrolled, its not as crystal clear although in the latin doctrine that space still belongs to the homeowner, law was changed to allow airplanes to fly without tresspassing. Do a simple search on "air Rights" and you may learn a little something. This from Zillow (wikipedia as always has some good info as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights):

Most people own the air rights above their homes, up to a point.

In real estate, air rights, which refer to the empty space above a property, are one type of development right. Before the 20th century, anyone owning property also owned the unlimited air rights above it, as well as the ground beneath it. Then and now, most property ownership laws are based on the Latin doctrine, “For whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to heaven and down to hell.”

Historically, the air which is in reasonable use by the homeowner is a very subjective term. depends on your state, county, city, etc. its why you cant just build a high rise condo anywhere. Your air rights include the view your home affords.

Also, think about the minimum obstacle clearance requiremnts from man made objects (peoples homes for example). Not only are they to protect the property in case of engine failures by airplanes, they are an acknowledgemnt of the owners air rights of their property in the FAA regulations (14 CFR Part 91). Its also why if the govt wants to string power lines over your property they need your permission and you must grant an easment. Now if they claim eminant domain, thats a whole nother aninal and a long legal battle.
 
Last edited:
Actually, not only am i a pilot i am a licensed real estate broker. let me be more specific. The air above your proprty that the homeowner can reasonably use. When dealing with the upper airspace where airplanes usually fly you are correct (Class A,B,C,D and E airspace) However in the area of class G which is uncontrolled, its not as crystal clear although in the latin doctrine that space still belongs to the homeowner, law was changed to allow airplanes to fly without tresspassing. Do a simple search on "air Rights" and you may learn a little something. This from Zillow (wikipedia as always has some good info as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights):

Most people own the air rights above their homes, up to a point.

In real estate, air rights, which refer to the empty space above a property, are one type of development right. Before the 20th century, anyone owning property also owned the unlimited air rights above it, as well as the ground beneath it. Then and now, most property ownership laws are based on the Latin doctrine, “For whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to heaven and down to hell.”

Historically, the air which is in reasonable use by the homeowner is a very subjective term. depends on your state, county, city, etc. its why you cant just build a high rise condo anywhere. Your air rights include the view your home affords.

Also, think about the minimum obstacle clearance requiremnts from man made objects (peoples homes for example). Not only are they to protect the property in case of engine failures by airplanes, they are an acknowledgemnt of the owners air rights of their property in the FAA regulations (14 CFR Part 91).


This is correct and was recently confirmed by a higher court in conjunction with the commercial use of RPVs (drones). At this point there is no provision for commercial use of drones in FAA controlled airspace but a real estate agent for example could take pictures with a drone below the FAA controlled airspace with the permission of the owner.
 
I'm not certain how the FARs pertain to powered parachutes, but if you abide by the airspace floor as set by FAR 91.119 you likely will be in Class G airspace.

I seriously seriously doubt a "They were trespassing in my airspace!" defense would lead to an acquittal for an assault committed toward someone legally abiding by FARs. Violating the FARs...that could be jury dependent.

On a related note, some powered parachute flyers are gigantic dickbags; there's one that operates at our based airport from time to time and that guy will criss-cross the threshold of the runway at 100' which makes landing a jet a real PITA at times.
 
I'm not certain how the FARs pertain to paragliders, but if you abide by the airspace floor as set by FAR 91.119 you likely will be in Class G airspace.

I seriously seriously doubt a "They were trespassing in my airspace!" defense would lead to an acquittal for an assault committed toward someone legally abiding by FARs. Violating the FARs...that could be jury dependent.

Like I said, not the smartest thing to do. But it could still be trespassing. What this para glider did was hardly a reason to open fire. Trespassing alone does not allow you to shoot someone.

But joe Biden did say it was okay to fire warning shots.


Posted via Tapatalk HD for iPad
 
On a related note, some powered parachute flyers are gigantic dickbags; there's one that operates at our based airport from time to time and that guy will criss-cross the threshold of the runway at 100' which makes landing a jet a real PITA at times.

You need to teach him about wake turbulence.


Posted via Tapatalk HD for iPad
 
It never ceases to amaze me where people build a house next to a shooting range and bitch about the noise of "gunshots" or build in next to an airport and bitch about airplane noise, or build next to a river and cry when their house floats away. All of those factors were there when you built your house or you bought it, so quit bitchin and move out, they were all in place before you built.
Don't know about this thing, but if he didn't research his area before he moved in, FUKIM , I am tired of paying larger premiums for insurance because someone wanted to live next to the creek. Look around Assbreath, what happens when it rains. or someone starts shooting or people start riding by on horses because you built next to an equestrian center. Rant over, FM
 
It never ceases to amaze me where people build a house next to a shooting range and bitch about the noise of "gunshots" or build in next to an airport and bitch about airplane noise, or build next to a river and cry when their house floats away. All of those factors were there when you built your house or you bought it, so quit bitchin and move out, they were all in place before you built.
Don't know about this thing, but if he didn't research his area before he moved in, FUKIM , I am tired of paying larger premiums for insurance because someone wanted to live next to the creek. Look around Assbreath, what happens when it rains. or someone starts shooting or people start riding by on horses because you built next to an equestrian center. Rant over, FM

While your rant is valid, i think you are missing the point. there are no designated para glide areas. the whole point of them is you can do it pretty much anywhere. this didnt happen at an airport. it happened on private property.
 
I think I have the point. Were there no other paragliders before he moved in or is this a new thing?
He built in 2012 along a path that paragliders use according to the OP.
Maybe paragliders need guns too. FM
 
He also questioned why Senior wasn’t charged for his verbal threat to Flinn, calling it “a direct threat to my client for which he’ll face no consequence.”

Douglas County Deputy Prosecutor Jason Mercer said Senior’s threat was made “in the heat of the moment,” after he was alarmed by Flinn’s first gunshot and saw Flinn carrying a firearm and yelling from the ground below him.

Oh, so if it's "heat of the moment" I can get away with anything.
 
reminds me of an incident i had with what i assume were military helicopters some years ago when i owned a house in the country near whiteman's AFB. i awoke way into the night, probably 3am to a bright light and rushing wind over our pond nearly drowning out the sound of our animals frantically crying. i emerged onto my porch half asleep with my carbine and shouldered it toward the alien craft. i was fixing to give E.T. hell when i noted loud wind had a very much rotor blade sound to it reverberating and shaking everything. about then in my moment of hesitation the craft cut its floodlights and rolled hard climbing out of our tree canopy and whined over to the neighbor pastures where it seemed to pause and meet 2 other what i think were apache's.
i went back to bed half ecpecting a visit from the sheriffs or some alphabet soup agency, but that never came. mayber i had airspace rights over the trespasser?
 
49 U.S. Code § 46318 - Interference with cabin or flight crew
Title 49 › Subtitle VII › Part A › Subpart iv › Chapter 463 › § 46318

(a) General Rule. - An individual who physically assaults or threatens to physically assault a member of the flight crew or cabin crew of a civil aircraft or any other individual on the aircraft, or takes any action that poses an imminent threat to the safety of the aircraft or other individuals on the aircraft is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $25,000.
 
reminds me of an incident i had with what i assume were military helicopters some years ago when i owned a house in the country near whiteman's AFB. i awoke way into the night, probably 3am to a bright light and rushing wind over our pond nearly drowning out the sound of our animals frantically crying. i emerged onto my porch half asleep with my carbine and shouldered it toward the alien craft. i was fixing to give E.T. hell when i noted loud wind had a very much rotor blade sound to it reverberating and shaking everything. about then in my moment of hesitation the craft cut its floodlights and rolled hard climbing out of our tree canopy and whined over to the neighbor pastures where it seemed to pause and meet 2 other what i think were apache's.
i went back to bed half ecpecting a visit from the sheriffs or some alphabet soup agency, but that never came. mayber i had airspace rights over the trespasser?

This story had so much potential.
 
49 U.S. Code § 46318 - Interference with cabin or flight crew
Title 49 › Subtitle VII › Part A › Subpart iv › Chapter 463 › § 46318

(a) General Rule. - An individual who physically assaults or threatens to physically assault a member of the flight crew or cabin crew of a civil aircraft or any other individual on the aircraft, or takes any action that poses an imminent threat to the safety of the aircraft or other individuals on the aircraft is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $25,000.

This applies to interference with an air carrier crew. Doesn't apply to a para glider or Joe Schmo flying his Cessna.


Posted via Tapatalk HD for iPad
 
Im calling BS on the whole 'I own the air over my house' thing. I'd paraglide over that guy's house on a daily basis...wearing body armor of course...
 
Im calling BS on the whole 'I own the air over my house' thing. I'd paraglide over that guy's house on a daily basis...wearing body armor of course...

Then logic states you don't own what's under your property either.


Posted via Tapatalk HD for iPad
 
Tactical Dillhole- Check out the title and deed on your property. If you own the mineral rights for your place then you own what is under the surface. If not, NO you do not own what is under your property. Logic, remember?
Most people don't know about that. There are many landowners around the Greeley, Co. area that are now finding out about this very thing.
Oil Companies drilling holes next to them and they scream like mashed cats only to find out that what is under them does not belong to them unless they own the mineral rights.
I have retained the mineral rights on all of my land, have you? Regards, FM
 
Tactical Dillhole- Check out the title and deed on your property. If you own the mineral rights for your place then you own what is under the surface. If not, NO you do not own what is under your property. Logic, remember?
Most people don't know about that. There are many landowners around the Greeley, Co. area that are now finding out about this very thing.
Oil Companies drilling holes next to them and they scream like mashed cats only to find out that what is under them does not belong to them unless they own the mineral rights.
I have retained the mineral rights on all of my land, have you? Regards, FM

I absolutely own the mineral rights. I was referring not to what was in the land but everything under your house. If you don't own the air, then do you own the land or only what is on the land.

We can get very deep in the weeds on this. Water rights, mineral rights, easements to use your land to extract the minerals under the land. Blah blah blah.

Point is, you absolutely own the air above and the land below unless you agree to give up said ownership in a legal and official real estate transaction.


Posted via Tapatalk HD for iPad
 
The way I see it, the guy's granddaughter is celebrating her birthday this month and something about a whole bunch of small versions of weather balloons painted with birthday colors tethered with long thin high tensile strength cables of various lengths.....
 
Tactical Dillhole- Check out the title and deed on your property. If you own the mineral rights for your place then you own what is under the surface. If not, NO you do not own what is under your property. Logic, remember?
Most people don't know about that. There are many landowners around the Greeley, Co. area that are now finding out about this very thing.
Oil Companies drilling holes next to them and they scream like mashed cats only to find out that what is under them does not belong to them unless they own the mineral rights.
I have retained the mineral rights on all of my land, have you? Regards, FM

^^ That. Unless you own the mineral rights, your DONT actually own the land under the surface.
 
he needs to put up an air fence and a coupe wind mill, to keep those pesky paragliders away. Raising pterodactyl wouldn't hurt either.
 
Some of those wind/power generators may work well...
 
49 U.S. Code § 46318 - Interference with cabin or flight crew
Title 49 › Subtitle VII › Part A › Subpart iv › Chapter 463 › § 46318

(a) General Rule. - An individual who physically assaults or threatens to physically assault a member of the flight crew or cabin crew of a civil aircraft or any other individual on the aircraft, or takes any action that poses an imminent threat to the safety of the aircraft or other individuals on the aircraft is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $25,000.
This applies to interference with an air carrier crew. Doesn't apply to a para glider or Joe Schmo flying his Cessna.
Nope. This regulation applies to everything that some branch or subset of the government doesn't own:

49 U.S. Code § 40102 - Definitions
(a) General Definitions.— In this part—
(16) “civil aircraft” means an aircraft except a public aircraft.

-- and --

Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 1—DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS
§1.1 General definitions.
...Civil aircraft means aircraft other than public aircraft...
...Public aircraft means any of the following aircraft when not being used for a commercial purpose or to carry an individual other than a crewmember or qualified non-crewmenber:..

And then it goes on to detail any of the special conditions that qualifies as a "public" aircraft NONE OF WHICH applies to any aircraft owned by a private individual or a business.


In brief, a "civil" aircraft is any aircraft not registered to a government entity or organization that operates as an arm of the government. Commercial or GA makes no difference; all are "civil." Which means 49 U.S. Code § 46318 cited above DOES APPLY to Joe Schmo's Cessna, and his paraglider, too.


Did you think they called it the Civil Air Patrol because they fly around in 747s?
 
Nope. This regulation applies to everything that some branch or subset of the government doesn't own:

49 U.S. Code § 40102 - Definitions
(a) General Definitions.— In this part—
(16) “civil aircraft” means an aircraft except a public aircraft.

-- and --

Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 1—DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS
§1.1 General definitions.
...Civil aircraft means aircraft other than public aircraft...
...Public aircraft means any of the following aircraft when not being used for a commercial purpose or to carry an individual other than a crewmember or qualified non-crewmenber:..

And then it goes on to detail any of the special conditions that qualifies as a "public" aircraft NONE OF WHICH applies to any aircraft owned by a private individual or a business.


In brief, a "civil" aircraft is any aircraft not registered to a government entity or organization that operates as an arm of the government. Commercial or GA makes no difference; all are "civil." Which means 49 U.S. Code § 46318 cited above DOES APPLY to Joe Schmo's Cessna, and his paraglider, too.


Did you think they called it the Civil Air Patrol because they fly around in 747s?

Hey you could be right, just never heard of it being enforced like this when someone interferes with a pilot flying a Cessna. But your logic is legit, my thought always go to a 121 or 135 operator.


Posted via Tapatalk HD for iPad
 
Hey you could be right, just never heard of it being enforced like this when someone interferes with a pilot flying a Cessna. But your logic is legit, my thought always go to a 121 or 135 operator.
"Civil" is the root word in "civilian." As in Joe Schmo.

But the FARs go nothin' in common with logic.
 
I was referring to the definition of a "civil aircraft." It's in F.A.R. Part 1.

Which deal with definitions. Fred's correct, civil does mean this ding-dong also. Don't confuse civil with scheduled, Part 135/141, etc..

Part 91 used to say maintain 500' from any person/thing in uncongested areas. May have changed.

I'm thinking at least a few festival balls. You know, controlling pest bird populations.
 
Kind of disturbing to think that this action is seen as well and good by the homeowner. Maybe I'm biased, but in skydiving, there is a chance of a mishap leading you to land on somebody's property, which was not the initial intention. If you have a problematic cutaway putting you lower than you'd like, you could find yourself needing to land in someone's backyard. I wouldn't want someone shooting at or around me in such an event.

There is a farmer adjacent to the dropzone I frequent who apparently gets frustrated with skydivers landing on his property. I understand the complaint, although it's not that the place is used as a landing zone intentionally - somebody misjudges a spot, ends up going low, or misjudges the wind and runs out of options and ends up on this guy's land. I guess it would be interesting to know if he was there first or the airport, but I figure in cases like this, no harm no foul. If someone lands there and damages some crops or something (none are planted in the field adjacent to the runway that I've ever seen), then I think it would be appropriate for the one landing there to pay for it. But if the farmer fired in or around anyone landing there, citing as a reason the repeat nature of the trespass, I don't think that's justified.
 
WRONG, I can tell you are not a licensed pilot. The air above your property does not belong to you, it belongs to the govt.. And this is settled law. Are you able to charge Air Lines a fee for right of way? NO. Do a little research, you'll find, very quickly airspace rules and regulation in the US, along with the history of their establishment.

And owns the damned government... the people do!
 
I may be wrong but I figure the old guy is watching his favorite John Wayne movie or surfing porn or whatever on a Saturday afternoon. He has listened to several of these gliders cross his property for the umpteenth time. Mr. Asshat decides to come in low and buzz his house. Old man is fed up and this is the last straw. He emerges with 12 ga. and Asshat decides he will give him the speech of " F off and move if you don't like it." BLAM 12 ga. goes off. "F you. I will come kick your ass old man, I can fly where ever I want" BLAM!! Oh yeah? Well, come on back anytime.
This was not an unfortunate incident as TNT suggests it was a blatant act. Sucks that you bought property were I like to fly!!! Get over it or move!! I think many of us would probably be in court just like the property owner. A little" Golden Rule" would have gone a long way in this situation.
 
Oh great, we've gone from shooting in his general direction to straight up advocating murder via booby trap.

It's a radio antenna. Your duty to avoid, not mine to prevent. Sorry for your luck, choose a safer hobby.
 
i may be wrong but i figure the old guy is watching his favorite john wayne movie or surfing porn or whatever on a saturday afternoon. He has listened to several of these gliders cross his property for the umpteenth time. Mr. Asshat decides to come in low and buzz his house. Old man is fed up and this is the last straw. He emerges with 12 ga. And asshat decides he will give him the speech of " f off and move if you don't like it." blam 12 ga. Goes off. "f you. I will come kick your ass old man, i can fly where ever i want" blam!! Oh yeah? Well, come on back anytime.
This was not an unfortunate incident as tnt suggests it was a blatant act. Sucks that you bought property were i like to fly!!! Get over it or move!! I think many of us would probably be in court just like the property owner. A little" golden rule" would have gone a long way in this situation.

this
 
I think the situation was probably more confrontational and the paraglider pilot may have antagonized the homeowner that time or in the past; however when we start justifying shooting at or around someone, especially when it's based on perceived insult/baiting, we can create some very troubling situations. The perception is solely the custody of the homeowner, and he might just light off at your resident paraglider pilot who came in low over his house because he's having a problem with his canopy. But the homeowner knows in his mind that these guys do it all the time and this guy is just buzzing his house for fun, for no good reason. He knows this guy is being a jackass, except he really isn't. Better yet, the homeowner puts up booby traps, and the guy in an emergency situation then crashes and dies as a result?

It's crappy to have people pestering you, but it's even crappier to give everyone the "f*** you treatment, hope you die and let God sort it out."

This post has completely ignored the fact that I still don't think it's ok to shoot at or around someone simply because they are annoying you. I consider shooting at or around someone, unless done with their full agreement as part of a circus stunt or something, to be an intended threat on his life. Are the paraglider's actions really something that constitute that kind of response? Or worse - attempt to kill him with booby traps? Really?