I'm in the "no I don't support the father" camp, but I'm near the mid-point of the issue and additional information about the circumstances could shift my opinion.
OK, some perv drones over his daughter. He has a right to defend the privacy of his property. But I don't think discharging a deadly weapon is necessarily justified in a situation where there's no physical threat to him or his family. I think more measured responses would have been appropriate. For example: Walk into the drone's view holding the shotgun and start counting fingers down. Something like that. If it was illegal to discharge his firearm in the manner he did, it's right that he was charged with the crime. People with guns shouldn't use them as an answer to non-physical threat, and the cops did what they should in enforcing the law.
Now, if I were a judge in charge of the justice system there, I would take into account that the guy was open-carry licensed, and used very good judgment to avoid violence in the aftermath, warning off the drone-owners not to cross onto his property. I would let the guy off with a warning or very watered down citation. This assumes any neighboring dwellings are far enough away that the shot couldn't have hurt anyone. Taking these circumstances into account is the judge's job, not the cops' job.
As for the drone owners, it's unclear to me what the law says the penalty is for them. They flew their drone trespassing wantonly onto someone else's property so there's no recourse for them in getting damages against the landowner. Did they commit a crime beyond the trespass, and does the definition of trespass there even include the drone scenario? Uncertain.
If the video contains inappropriate images of a minor they could easily be charged with child p@rnography.
Marc
