It's the future, baby

>>35080150
I don't know for sure, but it would probably be considered a booby trap, which is illegal.

>>35080150
people used contraptions like that to hunt and it is highly illegal, expect the ATF, FBI, and Local Game Wardens to come after your ass.

>>35080150
A lot of the justification for self defense comes from the fact that you're defending your self, not a fucking robot.

>>35080293
i think at that point you'd have the FAA and the FCC on your ass as well

>>35080150
I have heard of remote hunting like that.
But in the US for self defense it would put you in the big house.
if you are not at home it cant be self defense.

>>35080692

This, your life isn't in danger if you're 1k miles away

>>35080692
>>35080732
>>35080733
>self defense
Does your cuck state not allow the defense of property with lethal force?

>>35080150
there is always a delay

File: 1456225918321.jpg (32KB, 260x217px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 260x217px

>>35080293
>shoot black man breaking into my home with internet-powered gun
>get in trouble with game wardens for illegal hunting

File: 1425293499793.jpg (457KB, 763x1200px) Image search: [Google]

457KB, 763x1200px

>>35081112
Chimps be chimpin

>>35080732
Yeah I remember some guys who had set up a website to operate a remote gun and shoot deer on a game farm. I'm pretty sure the ATF took a big shit on them.

I'm sure sure they were actually prosecuted, but the atf does not need to charge you to totally fuck you up.

>>35080150
1 weaponized drone
2 booby trap

These are just two ways they could send you to jail, though you could potentially win. . . Hard to say, best to have this type of conversation with a lawyer.

>>35080150
First of all, there is ZERO CHANCE you could claim self defense if you were miles away from the intruder at the time.

Some states with "castle doctrine" might technically permit such an unforeseen scenario, but if so, it's the kind of thing which would give castle doctrine a very bad name - and it might go all the way to the state supreme court with the risk of the entire statute being invalidated.

I read somewhere that some states even with castle doctrine allow shooting only if you believe the intruder intended to harm you. And once again if you were safely miles away... forget that line of defense too.

Most likely the state would press multiple charges in order to prosecute under some additional angle, such as booby trapping or man trapping, which are widely illegal in themselves.

Then comes the civil suit. Prepare to lose every penny you've got plus every penny you'll make in the future.

IANAL

Never shoot at a person unless they leave you no choice. Yes it would suck watching your house get robbed on a webcam, but all you can do is call the cops.

If you just happened to go home and accidentally encounter the robber, and he threatens you, and you defend yourself, then that would be different legally. But after all of the legal drama had run its course, you'd surely end up wishing you hadn't come home at that time.

>>35080150
>Are there any legal issues (in America) considering operating firearms (semi-auto rifles, pistols) over the Internet as a civilian?
yes

you still have ownership over the object, so its still you that pulled the trigger

even if the object is fully automated, its you that set it up

your liability carries on through machines you use

D E F E N S E O F P R O P E R T Y U S I N G L E T H A L F O R C E

>>35083400
O H S H I T T H E Y A R E S E N T I E N T W E R E S O T O T A L L Y S C R E W E D

I'm pretty sure that falls under the category of mantrap, similar to you leaving a bear-trap in your house when you're away to catch intruders.

Illegal in most (all?) states as far as I know.