ShareThis Page

Springdale Township neighbors at odds over drone

Chuck Biedka
| Tuesday, Nov. 24, 2015, 12:26 a.m.
Mark Shock of Main Street in Springdale Township holds his drone that was damaged by his neighbor who threw stones at it in August. As seen on Monday, Nov. 23, 2015, when the case was resolved.
Eric Felack | Trib Total Media
Mark Shock of Main Street in Springdale Township holds his drone that was damaged by his neighbor who threw stones at it in August. As seen on Monday, Nov. 23, 2015, when the case was resolved.
Marti Wlodarski stands in front of her Main Street house in Springdale Township where she threw stones at her neighbor's drone, causing significant damage to the flying craft in August. The case was resolved Monday, Nov. 23, 2015.
Eric Felack | Trib Total Media
Marti Wlodarski stands in front of her Main Street house in Springdale Township where she threw stones at her neighbor's drone, causing significant damage to the flying craft in August. The case was resolved Monday, Nov. 23, 2015.

When a high-tech drone flew into the middle of a neighborhood squabble in Springdale Township, both sides were angry.

Monday's damage resolution didn't fully satisfy them, either.

Martina Wlodarski, 65, of Main Street, insisted she acted in self defense when she threw what she described as “driveway gravel” at next-door neighbor Mark Shock's drone buzzing at her Aug. 30.

This may be the first case involving a drone to land in criminal court in the Alle-Kiski Valley.

Across the country, several cases involve people upset with similar drones using guns, usually shotguns, to shoot the craft down.

Users are waiting for the Federal Aviation Administration to set regulations for the commercial use of drones.

The devices are the focus of legislation in the Pennsylvania General Assembly, including one seeking a study on the use of drones by state and local agencies, including police. A House bill would require all but law enforcement or military drones to fly below 3,000 feet and not within 3 miles of a stadium.

Shock's drone had four propellers cranking at 14,000 revolutions per minute, making it highly maneuverable.

Shock, 49, said for most of the two-hour flight, he flew the craft about 160 feet. He brought it down slowly, he said, as it was getting dark.

That's when Wlodarski came out of her house to investigate a strange noise. She stood next to a family van, out of Shock's view.

Suddenly, Wlodarski said, the noise came at her and she was terrified.

“It sounded like a weed-wacker or something coming at me at eye level. I didn't have a choice. No one told me it was under control,” she said after a short proceeding at the office of Harmar District Judge David J. Sosovicka.

Although Wlodarski still feels justified in tossing gravel and hitting the drone, she agreed to pay $600 in restitution to repair the 3½-pound craft.

In return, Sosovicka dismissed a criminal mischief charge against her.

Wlodarski, who describes herself as a “retired homemaker” and grandmother, doesn't have a criminal record.

Shock remains unhappy that his neighbor damaged his drone on its first day of use.

After all, he said, he spent three months comparing smartphone controlled drones and picked a “high-end model,” then mounted a video camera on it.

Shock said he wanted to use it to take video of his three daughters playing soccer.

He alleges Wlodarski threw a rock at his drone “without regard” for the six people standing next to him to watch the drone's inaugural flight. He said it was under control until it was damaged by Wlodarski's rock.

“It was a rock, not gravel,” Shock said. “She could have hit us or hit a car because the rock was thrown in the direction of the road.”

He said he accepted the case resolution so he can get money to repair the drone sooner than later.

It was ‘gnarly'

Shock said he tried to land the drone with his cellphone remote control app, but the “catastropic damage” made the remote useless.

The drone's high-speed propellers make it potentially dangerous if it's out of control, he said.

“If the propellers hit someone in the face or neck, someone would be seriously hurt,” Shock said.

That's why, Shock said, he reached up that summer night to the disabled drone that was crazily circling just within his grasp.

Shock showed a reporter video showing him gingerly reaching between the whirling 10-inch long, propellers to turn off the drone.

The video shows him suddenly throwing his head back.

“That's when two propellers blades flew off the drone and almost hit me in the face,” he said.

“It got really gnarly for a while,” Shock said.

Wlodarski said she is unhappy.

She can't forget being fingerprinted and placed on bond.

The charge will remain on the state's criminal records unless she later gets it expunged.

“Can she go to Canada and get back in? It would still show up. How about a gun permit if she wants one,” her attorney, Michael G. Winklmann, asked.

Chuck Biedka is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 724-226-4711 or cbiedka@tribweb.com.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.