-cut-
obviously to legally protect itself (should a drone owner(russia) cry foul of a bad shoot/damage/declaration of war..) poland would need to have done some kind of investigation to declare good reason to shoot it down. EG it came within polish borders.. if poland said it was 100km away from poland, russia could call it a message from poland declaring war on russia.. which would be a bad case to initiate
Why would they need to legally protect themselves? Russia denied sending them, so why would Russia even mind? And which court you think would defend individual doing this?
no country, including poland cant just shot anything. lets make up a country lets call it "dogwagtailistan" now lets say dogwagtailistan decided to airstrike a 'google street' aircraft or high altitude starlink satellite.. they need to justify the strike especially if its one countries attack on another countries property, the international courts would mediate/judge this
as for individual doing this.. well the height the drones can achieve i dont think it would be some 'individual' shooting it down with a handgun..
,, but when it comes to military actions they need to classify the attack via intel and such to justify the hit on a drone as a military concern. else it could be seen as a declaration of war instead of self defense
most idiots in this forum keep thinking war is just random attacks intent on killing anyone. they dont understand nor want to looking into military strategy, tactics and the rules of battle that determine if an incident is self defence, a military act, a intentful attack, and other such details like if there were any mitigating factors or intel to show how concerning the risk of the target can be.
by ignoring this. they want to exaggerate any and all attacks as terrorist or genocide or other buzzwords.