US Special Forces Operator Kills Undocumented Chechen Outside Home in North Carolina

a reply to: Xtrozero

No argument with anything you've presented, other than the fact that you've cherry picked the most optimistic angle to every one of my points (which is fine). We all know the real world is not quite so cut and dried. I realize you are likely biased because you are in the drone business, so you're looking at things through rose colored glasses.

For your information, the FAA doesn't "own" anything. The FAA only regulates controlled airspace as defined in a whole variety of FAR's not the least of which is Part 135. I could cite FAR's until people's eyes rolled back in their heads, but I'm not going to. And who said anything about shooting down drones??? LOL! Not me, this was your statement, not mine!

You make all sorts of assumptions about things which will, and won't, happen with drone deliveries. I can assure you, the first time a commuter aircraft falls out of the sky after a collision with an errant drone there will be countless reevaluation of any and all such operations and associated regulations. And, you must be a huge fan of increased government regulation if you support the FAA, or any other regulatory body, controlling the airspace immediately above treetop level...AND regulatory control will be an absolute must when the collisions start happening (even if drone to drone). You completely underestimate the greed which drives this whole business model, and if you think this can all take place in an unregulated environment, you are sorely mistaken.

And, how long do you think it's going to take for some electronics genius with nefarious intent to take over one of these unmanned vehicles, or an entire fleet? Or to cause it to go out of control from its host? It will be the next "fun" thing hacker groups like Anonymous and others cash in on. What happens when they seize control of all of Amazon's fleet, or Chik-fil-A's, or Pornhub deliveries???

There's no need for me to 'buckle up' (but thanks for the 'buckaroo' compliment), I am not the one who will be affected by this (other than the irritant factor of drones buzzing around everywhere like mosquitos). Don't forget, I'm on the side with the position of strength. The drone community is on the side with the position of weakness. And, if you think, for even one second, that the drone community will prevail over the commercial and general aviation sector when it comes to disputes, well, good luck with that...cos that ain't never gonna' happen.

Oh, and one last thing...rest assured Chik-fil-A, nor Amazon, nor any other business on this entire planet will ever deliver a single thing to me via drone. I will see to this. The minute those types of operations start, I will cease doing business with said company. The only unmanned vehicles which will ever get near my airspace are those which are permitted by agencies who pass such laws. I will never willingly invite such operations. I won't have to 'shoot' anything down

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk

No argument with anything you've presented, other than the fact that you've cherry picked the most optimistic angle to every one of my points (which is fine). We all know the real world is not quite so cut and dried. I realize you are likely biased because you are in the drone business, so you're looking at things through rose colored glasses.

I'm actually working with the FAA to get drones into the Part 135 realm, so you call it cherry picking and I call it "I just know what is coming".

For your information, the FAA doesn't "own" anything. The FAA only regulates controlled airspace as defined in a whole variety of FAR's not the least of which is Part 135. I could cite FAR's until people's eyes rolled back in their heads, but I'm not going to. And who said anything about shooting down drones??? LOL! Not me, this was your statement, not mine!

My point is shooting one of those drones will be like shooting at a C-172 flying by. Outside of that, people can bitch all they want. Had a lady tell me last year she saw a drone fly by and thought about shooting it, and I told her she doesn't own the airspace above her house, so she better think twice if she doesn't want to go to jail.

You make all sorts of assumptions about things which will, and won't, happen with drone deliveries. I can assure you, the first time a commuter aircraft falls out of the sky after a collision with an errant drone there will be countless reevaluation of any and all such operations and associated regulations.

I'm not making assumptions, that is my point. Drones also fly set routes with NFZs preset. If they lose X things, go into X maneuvers the engines are auto cut a parashoot pops. I can buy a C-172 tomorrow and with 60 hours flying all over the place with none of that protection and oversite these drones have.

And, you must be a huge fan of increased government regulation if you support the FAA

Need to work with them to make things happen, agree? You don't when you fly?

And, how long do you think it's going to take for some electronics genius with nefarious intent to take over one of these unmanned vehicles, or an entire fleet? Or to cause it to go out of control from its host? It will be the next "fun" thing hacker groups like Anonymous and others cash in on. What happens when they seize control of all of Amazon's fleet, or Chik-fil-A's, or Pornhub deliveries???

Harder than you think.. Not taking over the fleet maybe one at a time. Someone can steal a Prime truck too, much much easier.

And, if you think, for even one second, that the drone community will prevail over the commercial and general aviation communities when it comes to disputes, well, good luck with that.

And then you get on a plane one day with no pilots...hehe. We are all not working against each other, we are all working together to get it right.

Oh, and one last thing...rest assured Chik-fil-A, nor Amazon, nor any other business on this entire planet will ever deliver a single thing to me. I will see to this. The minute those types of operations start, I will cease doing business with said company. The only unmanned vehicles which will ever get near my airspace are those which are permitted by agencies who pass such laws. I will never willingly invite such operations. I won't have to 'shoot' anything down

But they are "unmanned vehicles which are permitted by agencies who pass such laws. " We fly under FAA waivers, everything is controlled.

Do you still use a VHS too

a reply to: Xtrozero

No, there is no easement. The platted easement for the regulated telco and power company ends at the end of my driveway which is about 1,280 feet from the house. And, the easement down the road is a revocable agreement in the event that any of the utility companies refuse to provide services. Our 2 mile road is private, and we constructed the agreement such that the HOA could revoke the agreement under certain circumstances. I don't anticipate this ever happening, but it's there in case that ever becomes an issue.

In the one situation I experienced I think they were in between some legal rulings because they have since moved the power meter out to the pole at the property line, so we won't have the possibility of a similar incident in the future. And this wasn't just us, it was everywhere else in the County too. It's a rural power company, so I think they just didn't have their understanding of the laws right when they built out their infrastructure. This, because I had to build from the house to the property line (which is standard practice), but then they turned around and put the meter at the house rather than at the point of interface between our infrastructure and theirs.

For the record, Utilities1 is the sister company of MoldCable which started up in 2016. The owners are immigrants.

Serghei Busmachiu is one of those people. An immigrant from a post-Soviet country, he received his technical education at one of the universities in Eastern Europe. In his desire to change people’s lives for the better, Serghei realized that it was almost impossible to achieve results in his native country’s realities. It was simply unrealistic to implement his ambitious ideas there. So he crossed the Atlantic and journeyed to America, where he began to work hard to make his dream come true.

I'm amazed they have done so well so quickly, but it's their time. They seem to be doing well and operate in over 25 US states.

Not great reviews from employees of the few on the net, but that's another issue.

ETA: And the homeowner that shot the contracted employee didn't call the cops according to what I've read. Some OTHER homeowner did, noting suspicious activity. Maybe they called their neighbor as well.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk

In the one situation I experienced I think they were in between some legal rulings because they have since moved the power meter out to the pole at the property line, so we won't have the possibility of a similar incident in the future. And this wasn't just us, it was everywhere else in the County too. It's a rural power company, so I think they just didn't have their understanding of the laws right when they built out their infrastructure. This, because I had to build from the house to the property line (which is standard practice), but then they turned around and put the meter at the house rather than at the point of interface between our infrastructure and theirs.

Do we know what kind of area the spec ops guy lived in? I'm wondering if it was much like your situation and not a tight development area.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Don't know, but if I recall correctly one report had this incident taking place some 2,000 feet from the residence which would suggest a property several acres in size as opposed to a 'zero-lot' type community. Sounds like it was more rural.

I only pointed out my example as a comparison. We are very rural which made our situation all that much more unusual (I thought). My main purpose in point this out was to illustrate it as an example of a subcontractor who had not informed their employees properly on procedures and common/accepted practices and courtesies.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk

Don't know, but if I recall correctly one report had this incident taking place some 2,000 feet from the residence which would suggest a property several acres in size as opposed to a 'zero-lot' type community. Sounds like it was more rural.

I only pointed out my example as a comparison. We are very rural which made our situation all that much more unusual (I thought). My main purpose in point this out was to illustrate it as an example of a subcontractor who had not informed their employees properly on procedures and common/accepted practices and courtesies.

I'm thinking a little more acreage between houses, it will be interesting where it ends up. I'm going with the spec ops guy is in trouble unless some serious facts come out.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Well, 1,250 feet is the typical frontage on a square 40 acre parcel, and 2,500 feet rough dimension on a 160 acre parcel (again, square), so I agree; certainly not smaller than this. That said, the wife and I have been looking at property in NC for the past couple years and it's pretty rare to find a square parcel of land there. Much of the land boundaries along the east coast follow the old metes & bounds survey methods from the 1700's so the properties are all kinds of weird shapes. In any case, I'd say we're in the neighborhood, size wise.

Wow but not really that surprising but I wonder what brought the Special forces to shoot and kill the man? Did the Chechens pull weapons on the solider? Was the soldier charged since the homicide didn't take place in the soldiers home and it was quit a distance from his house. I understand these guys were supposebly taking pictures of his kids but I still don't think you can just confront and kill people for doing that even if they were illegals and it's funny (not in a hilarious way) that no main stream sources are covering this and confirming if these guys are illegals or not? The one news source said the man who died was from Chicago but didn't say anything else. How long did he live in Chicago? Did he have family there like a wife and kids? Was he in fact illegal? Was he one of the "gotaways"? Or was he claiming asylum? Is he affiliated with any terror organizations? So many questions need to be answered

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: chr0naut

Is someone trespassing if they are taking pictures at a distance and are authorised to enter the property for purposes of maintenance of services? Can you claim self-defence if the person you are shooting is unarmed?

If the property is not posted as "NO TRESPASSING" then technically no, they are not. However, if they are asked to leave and refuse, then yes, they are. In any case, simple trespass is only a misdemeanor. Criminal trespass, on the other hand, such as breaking into a home / business is a more serious crime and could possibly involve deadly force. However, it does not sound like this is the case.

Does this give a person the right to shoot them in self defense? For trespassing alone, no, simple trespassing does not qualify as a life threatening or grave danger situation. If the property was properly posted, would this change anything? No, it is still just a misdemeanor. If it was a government facility posted with "Deadly Force is Authorized" then this would change things, but it doesn't sound like this was the case. It is not legal for private citizens to post a property in this fashion.

Can you claim self-defense if the person you are shooting is unarmed? This depends. Define 'unarmed'. No one is ever truly 'unarmed', but the question is to what degree. If Mike Tyson or Chuck Norris was in your yard, even if they didn't have a knife or firearm, then you could probably use deadly force in self defense. Short of that, it's probably going to need to be a pretty extreme and/or extenuating circumstance.

All that said, I'm not sure if we know whether the person who was shot was unarmed.

Conclusion - Not enough information to make an informed decision about who was right and who was wrong.

edit - The bottom line here about self defense is; trespassing really doesn't have anything to do with it. What really matters in a self defense situation is what level of threat was presented to the shooter. If that threat was at the grave bodily harm and/or threat of death level, then the requirements have been met for the use of deadly force in self defense.

Even without Posted signs, someone could be guilty of trespass if they enter a place they know they have no right to be, with ill intent.

a reply to: Xtrozero

My point is shooting one of those drones will be like shooting at a C-172 flying by. Outside of that, people can bitch all they want. Had a lady tell me last year she saw a drone fly by and thought about shooting it, and I told her she doesn't own the airspace above her house, so she better think twice if she doesn't want to go to jail.

It looks like a good way to burn through a whole bunch of bird shot!

Way harder than a flying clay disk

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

So, for those who are explaining away foreign nationals with no identification snooping around and taking photos of children in An area by a military base, it’s not the first incident of such a nature…
www.foxnews.com...

In a separate incident 18 months ago, Moore County experienced another mysterious shooting attack that targeted two electrical distribution substations. Damage from the attack left up to 40,000 residential and business customers without power in North Carolina for nearly 2 weeks. The power outage primarily affected communities heavily populated by U.S. Special Operations families. Less than two weeks prior to the Moore County substation incident, the FBI sent a report to private industry warning of an increase in reported threats to electric infrastructure from people who espouse "racially or ethnically motivated violent extremist ideology." The FBI took over that investigation, which remains unsolved.

a reply to: RussianTroll

Great story.

But, no offense.


I am wondering if you recall the Chechens attacking a school in Russia and doing the terrorist things the religion of peace are known to do?

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

You took that the wrong way I think from what I meant.

I think he had to make a decision. Much like in a Battlefield.

Let's say the perp was talking about hurting my kids while he is forcing me to helplessly watch it, or other things implying "imminent threat take the bad actor all the way to his destiny". We weren't there, but trained Special Forces know when and when not to take action is all I am saying. I already believe I know how I would react in certain circumstances and I am not Special Forces.

a reply to: EyeoftheHurricane

Look, I'm as much of a conspiracy theorist as the next tinfoil hat guy, but this story smacks of media spin. Do we really know if this guy was an "illegal alien"? And, this happened over 40 miles from a military base; probably 500 hundred other cities and communities in the USA qualify for the same distance. Did these guys 'attack' any infrastructure? No, not from any reports I've seen.

Again, look, I am one of the most conservative guys you will ever meet, BUT, I don't like people who lie, and I like the media even less than liars...(whom I like even less than thieves and murderers). I can't watch FOXNEWS, or CNN, they all lie (badly), and this story has all sorts of media "spin" all over it.

Question for you...if you have red hair (or any other color) and someone bombed a nuke facility with the same color hair as you have, are you guilty. Because you speak a language, or come from a certain country...are you guilty...because of what someone ELSE did? No, you are not, AND that is what "justice" in this country is based upon.

Trial and conviction by the media is not a thing here (FYI), but innocent until proven guilty is.

How about let's get the facts, all the facts first, before we pass judgment in this case, huh? Some radical muslim bombed the Boston Marathon with a pressure cooker, but does that mean everyone from his country, or everyone who speaks his language is also guilty? No, no it doesn't, but that kind of thing happens in places like Iran, and Asskrackistan.

We don't even know half of the facts right now, and just because some guy was a "Special Forces Colonel" and lived near an Army base, doesn't mean squat. Let's get the facts first.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Ok. lets start over


Imminent threat with someone who can handle one. That is going to be the most likely situation here. Not PTSD issues with the person being filmed/threatened. Real time hard decisions.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

The most we can do is speculate, agreed?

You see mine. I see your concerns.


We need to understand we have enemies within carrying the war to us now.

It will likely get much much worse before we get it squared away for real.

a reply to: Justoneman

Actually, I think the scenario is going to be...'misunderstanding, and language barriers, escalate to self defense shooting'.

The question will be, was the perception of threat justified? I'd be willing to bet you $100 bucks on this, straight-up.

I have no doubt these alleged perps were on the guy's property with cameras. The question will be what were they taking pictures of? If the evidence is confirmed to be pictures of the guy's children then there will be intent and motive. If the pictures are of utility infrastructure, then that's a problem for the shooter. If, the pictures have been erased, or are somehow missing, then this works in favor of the shooter (although lots of potential excuses by the defense for this).

Bottom line - We need more facts to make any sensible determination about what happened. However, if you want to take my bet, I'd be more than willing to oblige. We just have to agree that whatever the final outcome, you will agree to that outcome.

a reply to: Justoneman

One other thing we don't know is how old this guy's kids are. Given he's a Col. in the Army, this would suggest his kid are not small children. We can debate if they were minors, but none of us know. If they are adults (i.e. over 18), then pictures by some foreign national pervs might be a liability on them, but not necessarily a crime, and certainly not a high crime or felony. I know this sucks, but it's the law.

AND, then there would need to be proof of what these dudes were planning on doing with these pictures (i.e. extortion, kidnapping, profit...what?)

Trust me, I'm not sticking up for these guys, but I'm also sick and tired of media spin and hype, like sick to death of it, because it's almost impossible to get objective news anymore, and when I see stories like this my "spin" meter goes to "11" on a scale of 1 to 10.

originally posted by: NorthOS

It looks like a good way to burn through a whole bunch of bird shot!

Way harder than a flying clay disk

200+ feet 50+ MPH and you go to jail... good luck