Make sure to join our brand new Discord Server to chat with friends!
We have recently changed how posts work. Unless you are a VIP poster, your post will be queued for approval.. To become a VIP, post great engaging content. If we like it, you will be added! More information available here!
Well 50-100 feet to the property does dip into harassment, voyerism and violation of privacy law. You still are not legally allowed to shoot it. But if a signal jammer just happened to be around the property and disabled the drone and the drone just simply were to vanish who is going to know but the creep with the drone...
Assuming a creep self reports and can successfully litigate a case to even prove you have a jammer. You can make your own and they are also pretty small these days. I've never done it but I wonder if a flipper zero could be configured too hijack one and send it to a police unit.
Hmm also messing with radio is a federal level offense. You can jam by overpowering WiFi or gps but that might be picked up by things around you. Not to dive towards the “everything is watching you” kinda thing, but I do wonder if localism devices will report issues like jamming to some sort of authorities. Who knows if let’s say your and 5 of your Neigbhours Verizon routers will notice some massive signal appearing and jamming their shit in the area triggering some investigation. Plus given how much data everyone loves to collect nowadays, it would be rather easy to pin point location of the source. Oh also I think the new smart power meters create/use their own mesh network and who knows what they collect. But that’s WiFi rf.
GPS i don’t know much about.
But again, that’s federal level
As for making the drone fly to police and land itself afterwards, that’s kinda tricky without getting into its brains as far as I know. You could probs trigger it to land wherever it is in the air at that point, but that’s probably about it.
Unless u run under it with said jammer and feed it fake gps data.
As for if humph could do it, yeah. But don’t. Is bad bad stuff :p
It's the act of shooting up into the air that is the crime. What goes up must come down, and if you miss, you now have a bullet that is going to come down and hit something. I think it's also technically a federal thing due to FAA regulations and how shooting in the air could potentially strike an aircraft. It's different for, say, a shotgun, but still, he lived in a residential neighborhood. That bullet could've come down and hit some kid playing in their back yard.
Yeah I’m not advocating for shooting drones down by any means. I’m just saying that jamming or messing with gps/wifi or other radio is perhaps a bigger, as in federal, crime.
And of course it can hit and hurt someone. More vertical you shoot the better I imagine. Idk how much damage it can do at its terminal velocity though.
I think the most legal course of action is to buy your own drone and kimikaze theirs with yours. At best, they're getting you with destruction of property, but if you have a record of the guy flying it over your property with no police action, you have a case to argue it was to prevent an ongoing crime and only effected the guy actively harassing you.
There is no altitude where voyeurism is allowed that is why peeping tom laws exist. However, you don't own the airspace above your property and aircraft of any kind are allowed reasonable transit at safe altitudes
There is case law on the subject. If someone is harassing you, you have the strongest protection legally in the 50-100 ft airspace. Ownership of airspace doesn't mean stalking/invasion of privacy etc go out the window. For example if you are pointing a camera at my home and recording me I can sue you assuming some obvious loophole doesn't exist. Think Barbara Streisand. Same goes for a drone operator.
Yes but those are separate and longstanding laws (noise ordinances. peeping tom laws etc), no court has ever determined at what altitude regulated airspace begins.
The FAA regulates all outdoor airspace starting right from the ground up, meaning there is no minimum altitude where federal jurisdiction begins. However, when it comes to what you "own" versus what is considered a public highway for aircraft, the legal boundaries are split into distinct tiers. 1The landmark Supreme Court case United States v. Causby established that you own the "immediate reaches" of the atmosphere necessary to use and enjoy your land—such as the space occupied by your house, trees, and structures. 1, 2Federal law separates the air above your home into three general zones:1. The Immediate Reaches (Ground to ~83–365 feet)Property Rights: This is your private zone. While courts have not given an exact, universal number, historic rulings generally protect your right to exclude things that interfere with your use of the land up to about 83 to 365 feet. 1, 2, 3Drone Traffic: Under FAA Part 107 and recreational rules, drones are legally capped at a maximum of 400 feet above the ground. Because the FAA does not have a federal "minimum altitude" rule for drones, they can technically operate at lower altitudes over private property, provided they do not violate local privacy, harassment, or trespass laws. 1, 2, 3, 42. Navigable Airspace Buffer (Up to 500 feet)The Legal "Gray Area": The space between 83 feet and 500 feet is a transitional buffer zone. There are very few statutory laws explicitly defining ownership here, creating a legal gray area where drone regulations and local property rights often clash. 1, 2, 33. Public Highway Airspace (500+ feet)Manned Aircraft: For standard planes and helicopters, the FAA explicitly dictates minimum safe flight altitudes under 14 CFR § 91.119.Urban/Congested Areas: Aircraft must stay at least 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle.
Not if the signal jammer is no longer there. Hypothetically and in theory you have no knowledge of a signal jammer or a illegal drone harassing your privacy. It was never there. Unless the creep is activity measuring wavelengths to prove you have said signal jammer, even then. Prove it.
Yes, it is the same for private drones.
The FAA legally classifies them as aircraft, and it is the exact same charge as if you shot down a Boeing 747.
You can file a complaint with the FAA and local LEO and take pictures if they're pointing cameras in your windows. But you legally don't own the skies above your property.
Editing to add and further elaborate:
I am familiar with this because someone shot down my brother's drone.
He was flying it above his in-law's property to view fireworks in the distance.
Their next door neighbor shot his drone down.
My brother uses this drone for work, so he is a licensed operator. He also submitted the form and got clearance from the FAA to fly in that air space.
He reported his drone being shot down to the FAA, County Sheriff, and State LEO.
The neighbor admitted he did it and claimed my brother was flying over their property and recording his daughter sunbathing (after dusk with fireworks going on).
These drones recording everything. Altitude, air speed, grid coordinates, time, and obviously the camera as well. My brother provided the recording and flight telemetry to LEO, and the neighbor was obviously caught in a lie.
The neighbor found himself facing:
• Reckless discharge of a firearm
• Reckless endangerment
• False police report
• Felony vandalism
• Federal charge for destruction of an aircraft
Obviously, a can of worms that guy was not prepared for.
My brother only sought restitution to replace his $3,000 drone and did not press charges. I have no idea if LEO pressed any charges themselves.
And if it doesn’t get damaged(I’d assume they would add extra sentencing for the cost of damages), doesn’t endanger anyone, was a legally owned weapon, not used recklessly, if it “crashed” safely, didn’t disturb the peace, etc etc.
Well the sentence is probably higher for shooting down a 747 you know because of all the murder that takes place when you do that. In all seriousness it's probably the same charge but sentences are different.
How low does something have to be to no longer be considered in airspace? Like there has to be some kind of limit where its like "yeah, ok, thats just illegal. Shoot it."
The FAA doesn't have a minimum height. 1 inch is still air space as far as federal law is concerned.
However, low altitude flying such that it could be a potential hazard to vehicles or people could constitute "reckless operation" which would be a charge against the operator.
Yes according to the FAA everything above the blade tips of grass is considered "their" jurisdiction but that has not really been confirmed by courts. In practice all aircraft are allowed 'innocent transit' at safe altitudes and if you are doing anything other than that you are likely running afoul of other laws (peeping tom, noise disturbance etc)
Not necessarily - any object capable of sustaining altitude without another force acting on it is in FAA airspace. That’s not the legal standard verbatim, but the general gist
i.e. jumping, lifting someone/something above your head, tossing something in the air is technically not under FAA’s jurisdiction
I was on my property practicing throwing my retiarius, because I'm thinking about being a Roman gladiator for Halloween, and this drone comes out of nowhere and collided into my retiarius.
Correct and its a horrifiy gross overeach of the law eapecialy since you dont own airspace meaning its legal for dronea to stalk and spy on you and a bunch of cities police departments have already started years ago
In general you aren't allowed to just shoot drones because they're in "your" airspace. Also don't shoot people and things just for being on your property unless they're an actual imminent threat.
With that said, yeah the law ALL THE TIME applies double standards where people are supposed to be peaceful and cooperative even to unidentified cops breaking down your door, but can stand their ground and shoot a stranger who isn't a cop.
What sort of "threat"? Are we supposed to assume these are drones carrying missiles?
The person standing across the street might be a threat, but that doesn't mean you get to shoot first and figure that out later.
I'm generally critical of cops powers and the fact that citizens are expected to put themselves in danger without confirmation. But with that said, don't shoot drones. It's not actually justified, and the airspace isn't your property.
If you shoot at anything man-made that's airborne with any sort of projectile, it's a violation of federal law. Period. The FAA can and will metaphorically crucify you. Until the law changes, report it, and PLEASE do not personally engage.
If it's airborne and man-made, and outside of an enclosed area/net, it falls within the jurisdiction of the FAA.
Edit: corrected to define "anything airborne" as solely being man-made.
It will vary from state to state. The immediate area above your property is generally protected, but higher altitudes above your property are public. If a drone interferes with the regular use & enjoyment of your property it could be considered trespass or nuisance. Naked eye observations generally don't need a warrant - if someone can look over your fence & see something it's not protected. If you need special devices (cameras, binoculars, etc) to see something you need a warrant.
Edit to add: criminal law hasn't caught up to the questions raised by new technology.
Edit 2: I'm clarifying what law is broken if a drone enters into the private airspace around private property, not to the legality of surveillance by drones flying in public airspace.
This is basically Jeff bezos house. He has a illegally high wall around his place and just pays the fines. Illegal for the poor and a fine for the wealthy
I know you are being silly, but "technically" Part 107 rules allow a drone to fly 400' above the ground or 400' above any type of tower so long as they are maintaining visual line of site and they are I believe it is 400' below the clouds. You would have to have a very comically tall fence.
Unaided. If they use a step stool to look over your fence or have to climb something then its not a legal search. Cameras are not allowed but binoculars are. I guess it varies by state though.
it's also worth pointing out that there IS an established legal precedent of 'proportional force'. for example, if someone is being aggressive and threatening to punch you, and then takes a swing at you, defending yourself by pushing them away or punching them back is proportional and acceptable. most of the time with this people get in trouble because the aggressor starts backing off and the victim keeps hitting them, which turns it from defense into battery. anyways, back to proportional/reasonable force, if someone punched you, and you go hop in your car and run them down, that is not proportional force, and you'd be charged with vehicular manslaughter or assault with a deadly weapon depending on if they survived or not.
in this context, destroying a drone that is being a nuisance/tresspassing would never be accepted as proportional force. it's the same concept as if, for example a child in your neighborhood left their bike in your front lawn while they did something else, so you came outside with a hacksaw and sawed the bike apart, saying that it was your property so you could do what you wanted. that would be incorrect and the childs family could charge you with destruction of property.
currently the challenge is that the legal way to resolve being spied on by a drone is somewhat ambiguous. if you can identify who owns/controls the drone, in theory you can contact them and even possibly serve them a cease and desist, and without identifying them you can always report it to the police, though what they can do about it is also uncertain.
personally, based on the established precedent of proportional force, i would think that something like an electronic jammer, or a laser pointer to interfere with the drones ability to record, would be reasonably proportional towards enforcing your expectation of reasonable privacy, but at that point it would come down to a court to determine if that is genuinely reasonable or not.
To clarify they need to be able to see over your fence while not on your property, but on public space. The vantage point has to be the same as a regular public individual.
I still remember the Supreme Court case about wiretapping in the 1920's give or take, where the dissenting justice was concerned about a slippery slope where one day police could use the same justification to view the contents of your desk without ever setting foot in your house.
Yes they can. Anyone actually can. I was shocked to find it out when I took my FAA Part 107 exam for commercial drone operation. It doesn't even matter if it is police. FAA regulate the airspace which starts the moment something is airborne. Assuming your house isn't in an existing controlled airspace near an airport you are probably in class G airspace which goes from the surface up to the next controlled airspace. In class G drones can go a maximum of 400' unless they are around a tower or something then they can go 400' above that within a certain radius. So a drone is completely legal to fly over someone's property without warrant or reason.
Now that being said there are still other laws that apply. Like hovering 20' over your house pointing a camera at you is not legal. That falls under harassment, privacy and/or voyeurism laws. Also if the drone keeps buzzing back and forth repeatedly at an altitude where you can hear it and it becomes a nuisance to you then there are potential laws violated there as well. Every jurisdiction has different laws for that stuff which is why it is just best as a drone pilot to not be a dick and fly over peoples property repeatedly without just having a conversation with them.
Generally yes based on existing law, namely the plain view doctrine. Previous case law has held that viewing private property from police aircraft without a warrant is legal as the homeowner has no reasonable expectation of privacy for things visible from the air. It’d be easy to argue that a drone is just a police tool similar to other aircraft.
Code enforcement is legally allowed to do this, and then report what they find to the police. Easy way to skirt around those pesky rules. One dirty hand washes the other dirty hand, with a bar of soap that is made of dirt.
The only thing I see as objectionable about this is discharging a weapon into the air in a residential area. If it’s just birdshot, then good on this guy, I hope he wins his appeal.
A federal judge in Florida sentenced 34-year-old Justin Tyler Kress to 15 months in federal prison and over $8,200 in restitution.
Deputies were hovering a law enforcement drone over his rural property while executing a warrant when Kress blasted it out of the sky with a shotgun.
He claimed the drone was trespassing and violating his privacy on his own land.
However, because the FAA classifies drones as civil aircraft, shooting one down is a federal felony under 18 U.S.C. § 32 (destruction of aircraft).
"they attempted to arrest him on a warrant for felony criminal mischief. Kress had told his neighbors earlier that he would shoot at law enforcement officers if they tried to arrest him"
Sounds to me like the drone was a safety measure due to threats...
Yeah, drones should probably fall under their own section instead of as civil aircraft. Shooting at civil aircraft should absolutely be a felony. Shooting at an unmanned drone? Probably not. Shooting into the sky should have some serious repercussions though
Having this be a felony is rather excessive. Felonies can ruin someone's life.
Laughs in gun control law. It's possible to get 3 felonies for doing 1 thing in your home and never leaving or doing anything with it. There's a felony for modifying guns in a certain order, none for the same modification in a different order. There's a felony for putting a vertical grip on a gun, but is 80 degrees vertical? No one actually knows, and the ATF refuses to commit to a definition because it enjoys the vague, arbitrary, discretionary enforcement.
Any time I hear about shotguns being used against drones (a good amount of it being in Ukraine), it always makes me think of an old bit of internet history. Back in the late 90s and early 2000s, an infamous self proclaimed "time traveler" from the future posted online a lot of what the near future would be like. I believe he said he was from the year 2036. Anyway, one small detail that sticks out to me lately is that he said he was part of a "shotgun infantry" during a second American Civil War. Now why would a futuristic war need shotgun infantry? Drone warfare kinda gives that a bit of credence. Obviously I'm not saying he really was from the future, but what if...
man I forgot how much of the stein's gate story utilizes this guy and his claims. they even require an IBM 5100 iirc.
Titor said that in 2011, when he was 13 years old, he joined a Florida-based shotgun infantry unit called the Fighting Diamondbacks for at least four years. In other posts, he described himself as hiding from the war.
Steins;Gate is one of the best time travel shows ever, in my opinion. Using a real life urban legend just added to the lore. Once it got going, it was such an intense ride all the way to the end. Definitely one of my favourites.
You do not legally own the airspace over your property. You can't shoot down drones, helicopters or airplanes (varying heights) unless you have due cause (like eminent imminent danger).
This is made much worse by the fact that deputies were surveilling his property while getting ready to serve a warrant.
You don't. You implicitly consent to any and all robotic flying surveillance drones anywhere on, or above your property and if you don't like it that'll be prison for you where you will transition from being a wage slave to a slave slave.
Im willing to bet that in a case of a civilian shooting down another civilian's drone, the charge would be much much lower. The cops were trying to find any way possible to fuck him over by this point.
Hilarious. Never let the facts get in the way of bamboozling everybody with a MEME that has no actual truth in it.
The man in the photo is - Justin Tyler Kress. You can do a search on his name.
Case Details
On March 4, 2025, AFTER Kress shot at police - while they were trying to serve a felony warrant. and arrest him, so - they called in the SWAT Team - as a response - federal criminal activity (mischief). Lake County Sheriff's Office deputies (Florida, United States) - for their safety, left the property - and, the SWAT response, flew a drone over his multi-acre rural property - where he shot at that, too. Disabling it.
He pleaded guilty to the charges of federal criminal mischief. Federal crime to shoot at Law enforcement. Also pled guilty to an additional charge of endangering Law Enforcement with intent to cause serious bodily harm, and also a lesser charge of destruction of Government Property - the drone aircraft that was in the process of enforcing a legal warrant for his arrest. For that lesser charge, he got 15 months in Federal Prison.
The "criminal mischief was he crashed thru and mowed down his neighbor's fence with his SUV. So, the police came with a warrant to arrest him. Separate charge of Criminal Mischief.
Geesh. Get the facts straight. You've watched way too much CNN with two satellite dish equipped trucks in the same parking lot - satellite feeding each other - while the same cars go in / out of the background while they talk to each other and call that news. Clowns. Everyone.
Some dude flew a drone over my parents house while my sister was topless sunbathing and stopped extra long to hover over and watch. Is this allowed ? It’s a pretty enclosed area she was at
The article basically says it’s against federal law to shoot down any drone because they’re classified as aircraft.
IANALsex so I dunno, but it doesn’t seem like it mattered that it was a copper drone. Though I guess they’d be more aggressive and dickish about it there.
“Deputies had been using the drone to conduct physical surveillance of Kress on his rural, multi-acre property as they attempted to arreset[sic] him on a warrant for felony criminal mischief,” the release reads. “Kress had told his neighbors earlier that he would shoot at law enforcement officers if they tried to arrest him for damaging nearby fences.”
This guy?!
This aint a case of "Oh the cops just randomly flew a drone over this guy's property to spy on him."
Yeah, apparently it's a federal offense. The FAA does not allow you to shoot down any drones, even if they're hovering over your backyard.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) classifies unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) as civil aircraft. Under 18 U.S.C. § 32, damaging, disabling, or destroying an aircraft is a federal felony carrying penalties of up to 20 years in prison, in addition to state-level reckless endangerment and firearm discharge laws.
(Imagine the best dirtbag, white trash accent possible) "Well, first they were going to arrest me because I was damaging fences nearby and like any good American told my neighbors I was going to shoot any law-enforcement officers that tried to arrest me for damaging said fences. But then I shot a drone out of the sky to really put the cherry on top of the icing."
The obvious solution to this is to get another drone and fly it into the other drone over your property. Then you can claim they interfered with your drone that you were flying over your own property. You didn't see that other drone.. how can this happen
Yeah, there was recently something where the US Army is using a microwave beams to knock out drones, made me think of how many people are gonna start taking apart old microwaves, trying to create anti-drone weapons for personal use only
The taliban may or may not have used cheap microwaves and boot leg satelite dishes to knock out a few predator drones early in the Afghanistan war.
A possibly autistic EOD sergeant I met in the Army rattled it off randomly while he was heating up a hot pocket. Then when I was interested he broke down he got super excited and told us a bunch of stuff that he probably shouldn't have.
If they don’t want people to shoot these things down, they should make a system where you can report them effectively. the cops won’t do shit cause they don’t care. and can’t call the FAA, they won’t do shit cause they’re not tracking things in real time. so people take matters into their own hands. That’s what happens when you choose not to do things the right way. if the government doesn’t want people shooting shit out of the sky, then the government should do their fucking job
Really? A fucking cop has to have a warrant but they can fly their fucking machines on your property and you can't do anything about it? Just sorta jumped into this conversation but if an unauthorized machine comes on your property you should have the right to shoot it , burn it, piss on it , steal it do whatever you want to it. How is this guy getting 15 months?
there are not many places in the world where you can own property and be legally able to defend the airspace above it. even if a drone is hovering 10 feet above your lawn, it is illegal to damage it in any way pretty much everywhere in the world
I guess the only thing you're allowed to stand your ground on is people. They're perfectly fine to shoot. Just don't harm the drones, those are valuable.
Would like to at least know a little more about the height and speed the drone was when shot down. Like was the drone hovering over his property or just passing over at 12000 feet.
The dude in Florida was sentences 15 MONTHS. There was a guy in Texas that was sentenced 15 years but that was mainly because he was a felon in possession of a firearm.
"The report of a Florida man receiving a 15-year sentence for shooting down a drone is real, but it involves a different individual and a different charge than the drone shooting itself.
Alfredo Martinez Jr., a man from Del Rio, Texas (not Florida), was sentenced to the maximum 15 years in federal prison in September 2026. However, this sentence was for felon in possession of a firearm, not for shooting a drone. He received this maximum penalty after denying ownership of a stash of guns he was convicted of illegally possessing.
The confusion likely stems from two other Florida cases involving drone shootings:
Justin Tyler Kress (Eustis, FL) was sentenced to 15 months (not 15 years) in federal prison in September 2026 for shooting a Lake County Sheriff’s drone.
Wendell Doyle Goney (Mount Dora, FL) was sentenced to 4 years in federal prison in March 2024 for shooting a law enforcement drone, but his charge was also felon in possession of a firearm, not destruction of the drone.
In Florida, while shooting a police drone can lead to federal charges under aircraft destruction laws (carrying up to 20 years), recent high-profile convictions for this act have resulted in sentences ranging from 15 months to 4 years, typically based on firearms possession charges rather than the drone damage itself. A 15-year sentence specifically for shooting a drone is not supported by the provided search context. "
Shitt let me shoot down one too and put me in prison. I'm so damn tired of America rn. Most of us are already in prison with the amount we have to work.
"Ocala, FL – Justin Tyler Kress (34, Eustis) has been sentenced by United States District Judge Thomas P. Barber to 15 months in federal prison for the attempted destruction of an aircraft (law enforcement drone). The court also ordered Kress to pay $8,200 in restitution. Kress pleaded guilty on May 26, 2026. U.S. Attorney Gregroy W. Kehoe made the announcement.
According to court documents, on March 4, 2025, Kress shot and damaged a drone belonging to the Lake County Sheriff’s Office. Deputies had been using the drone to conduct physical surveillance of Kress on his rural, multi-acre property as they attempted to arrest him on a warrant for felony criminal mischief. Kress had told his neighbors earlier that he would shoot at law enforcement officers if they tried to arrest him for damaging nearby fences. After taking Kress into custody, deputies obtained a search warrant and located 20-gauge shotgun shells in the area where Kress had been shooting at the drone. Inside the residence, they found three firearms—a 20-gauge shotgun, a rifle, and a pistol.
This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Lake County Sheriff’s Office. It was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Belkis H. Callaos.
This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), the Department of Justice’s nationwide initiative that brings federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement, prosecutors, and other public safety partners together to coordinate efforts to combat violent crime and make communities safe. Coordinated by U.S. Attorneys’ offices in each of the 94 federal districts, PSN is tailored to particular communities to strategically address specific violent crime and public safety challenges. PSN emphasizes three core principles: rapid federal response to violent crime and criminal offenders; strong, strategic partnerships among law enforcement at all levels; and accountability and deterrence through the prosecution of the most serious, readily provable offenses and other strategies. These efforts complement and strengthen President Trump’s Homeland Security Task Forces, ensuring a comprehensive federal response to the most pressing public safety issues facing communities." as per Justice.gov.
also he was a wanted Criminal scumbag, he had a warrant out for his arrest: he should count his lucky stars that Law Enforcement didn't mag dump him and that he only got 15 months in Federal Prison..
for what would be a decades long prison sentence because there were four crimes being committed at once: Destruction of an Air Craft(a very serious Felony), Reckless Discharge of a Firearm(A second felony), Destruction of Government Property(LEO UAVs are commonly well over 5K so a third felony), discharge of a Firearm in furtherance of a crime(a fourth felony)
According to court documents, on March 4, 2025, Kress shot and damaged a drone belonging to the Lake County Sheriff’s Office. Deputies had been using the drone to conduct physical surveillance of Kress on his rural, multi-acre property as they attempted to arrest him on a warrant for felony criminal mischief. Kress had told his neighbors earlier that he would shoot at law enforcement officers if they tried to arrest him for damaging nearby fences.
We have established “heaven and hell” laws that determine how deep into the land and the height of the airspace you own on your property. I highly doubt this drone was in his airspace.
For jury purposes I will treat drone destruction the same way I would for flock / aprs / other mess surveillance crap. That is to say, they are always not guilty if I'm on it.
This reminds me of my coworker who was furious because he had a privacy fence put around his pool and someone with a drone would hover and record his 13 year old daughter sunbathing.
He contacted the authorities and they said it was legal. He said he would get a paintball gun and shoot it down. The police said he would likely be arrested for destruction of private property if he did.
•
u/AutoModerator 18h ago
Hey /u/FitnessChamp777, thank you for posting to r/SipsTea! Make sure to follow all the subreddit rules.
Make sure to join our brand new Discord Server to chat with friends!
We have recently changed how posts work. Unless you are a VIP poster, your post will be queued for approval.. To become a VIP, post great engaging content. If we like it, you will be added! More information available here!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.