Hunters Shoot Down Drone of Animal Rights Group 1127
Required Snark writes "A remote control drone operated by an animal rights group was shot down in South Carolina by a group of thwarted hunters. Steve Hindi, the group president said 'his group was preparing to launch its Mikrokopter drone to video what he called a live pigeon shoot on Sunday when law enforcement officers and an attorney claiming to represent the privately-owned plantation near Ehrhardt tried to stop the aircraft from flying.' After the shoot was halted, the drone was launched anyway, and at this point it was shot down. 'Seconds after it hit the air, numerous shots rang out,' Hindi said in the release. 'As an act of revenge for us shutting down the pigeon slaughter, they had shot down our copter.' 'It is important to note how dangerous this was, as they were shooting toward and into a well-travelled highway,' Hindi stated in the release."
This is interesting and all... (Score:5, Insightful)
but I don't come to slashdot for this. Is it because they use the word 'drone' instead of remote control helicopter that this becomes something for nerds?
bird shot (Score:5, Insightful)
bird shot fired from a shot gun - upwards - is harmless. It comes down softly. The only way to hurt someone is to shoot them directly and they would still need to be within a few meters. There are other types of shotgun ammunition that can do a lot more harm but the shot for dove, pigeon, etc. is very small and light.
Re:bird shot (Score:5, Funny)
After all, it flies, so it must be a bird...
Re:bird shot (Score:5, Funny)
bird shot fired from a shot gun - upwards - is harmless. It comes down softly. The only way to hurt someone is to shoot them directly and they would still need to be within a few meters. There are other types of shotgun ammunition that can do a lot more harm but the shot for dove, pigeon, etc. is very small and light.
This, of course, is known as the Dick Cheney Unprinciple.
(Smirk)
Ya well (Score:4, Informative)
My guess is that in addition to being anti-hunting, they are also anti-gun (those two often go together). Well something else you discover is that often the anti-gun crowd is very, very uneducated about guns. Rather than learn all about them so as to have more solid arguments, they are scared by them and thus know little to nothing about them.
So it doesn't surprise me at all they they would believe that any gun fired in any direction is a major hazard. Plus I'm sure they are bitching as loud as possible to get attention (and it seems to be working).
For those wondering, the parent is correct: birdshot will fall to the ground harmlessly. Birdshot is composed of hundreds of tiny, tiny pellets, 2mm or so. Thus they lose kinetic energy rapidly in the air, and don't hit very hard when they fall. It is specifically designed to be shot in the air and not have to worry about where it falls. Rather important for bird hunting.
Even buckshot isn't all that dangerous falling back to ground. While larger and heavier, it is also just round lead balls and thus cannot maintain a ballistic trajectory and just falls back to the ground.
Rifle bullets are the ones that are most dangerous, though pistol rounds can be as well. Since they are spin stabilized they can maintain a ballistic trajectory for long distances, miles even. As such they can potentially hit with lethal force even if fired at a pretty steep angle.
Re:Ya well (Score:5, Insightful)
My guess is that in addition to being anti-hunting, they are also anti-gun (those two often go together)
Hmmmmmm. From my point of view being pro-gun and pro-hunting tend to go together.
Re:Ya well (Score:4, Interesting)
I should be in bed, but I can't let this one pass.
You're asking why a "city boy" can't understand hunting. First, I'm not a city boy. I grew up in rural western NY under a father that loved to hunt and fish. I did both, as well, up to a point. I have no less than five guns in my house. I have three shotguns (12 ga), a double-barrel shotgun (12 ga), and a .22, which is my favorite. I've also had a 30-06 and a rifle .45. My house butts up to the bottom of the hill on which I spent a large part of my childhood and have seen shit-tons of deer, turkey, squirrel, rabbit, etc.
I'm one of six boys in the family. Four of us hunt, two do not. I see my youngest brother, a fat, lazy slob - but otherwise a nice guy - go out and take down Nature's finest with the single pull of a trigger. He's gotta huff and puff his ass out to a tree stand and then wait for some dumb deer to walk in front of him. Having wrestled and played lacrosse, I don't consider that "sporting." It's blood lust, plain and simple. If he wants to feel good about killing that deer, let him do it Nature's way: chase it down and kill it with his bare hands. I'd even let him use a knife, since the deer's hooves can be pretty sharp. That would even the fight.
Either way, he doesn't have to shoot the deer; he can survive just fine without it. The deer, otherwise left alone, could go on to do his own thing, have babies of his own, get eaten by wolves, whatever. That's Nature.
You put feed out to attract them to your slaughter points, just like you stalk salt licks, waiting for deer to show up. If you were really humane, you wouldn't draw them to an area where they couldn't survive without your traps. They'd migrate where the food was naturally more plentiful.
Guys like you, and my brothers, just want to shoot the shit out of every thing that moves, showing off your "manhood" in an unfair battle. Ok, it's not illegal. But don't expect me to support your barbarianism, or your rationalization that what you're doing is "good fer the critters." It ain't.
Re:Ya well (Score:4, Interesting)
"For those wondering, the parent is correct: birdshot will fall to the ground harmlessly."
* Doesn't sound like a shotgun to me.
* The "highway" was smaller than many country roads.
* They claim the UAV was over the highway, but it doesn't look that way to me, they were definitely over the property across the the road.
* The video doesn't show any damage to the UAV not consistent with the hard landing.
* The only evidence that it was shot is someone saying it was shot on the conveniently running camera recording the flight of the UAV. (Not from the UAV itself)
* They claim that the shots were coming from the bushes near the road, yet the UAV camera was focused on the property on the opposite side of the road.
They've stretched the truth on their easily verifiable claims, to the point I'm not inclined to believe a word of their other claims until there is clear and good quality proof.
Re:Ya well (Score:4, Insightful)
Regardless of how harmless bird shot is (I know, you can fire it straight up and it doesn't hurt at all)...
The same laws apply to the shotgun no matter what is loaded in it. Firing towards a highway is probably against the law.
There may be the occasional hit (Score:4, Informative)
Kinda depends. So if you fire the bullets at a steep enough angle, they'll lose their ballistic trajectory and tumble back to Earth. In that case they don't go very fast and while the might hurt if they clocked you in the head, they won't cause any real injury. Also out in the middle of nowhere there is a lot of unoccupied desert so even if the bullets do fly far, they probably don't hit anything.
None of that is to say it is a good idea or anything, but I doubt it is all that common for people to get injured or killed by it.
Re:There may be the occasional hit (Score:5, Informative)
None of that is to say it is a good idea or anything, but I doubt it is all that common for people to get injured or killed by it.
Wrong, celebratory gunfire [wikipedia.org] kills quite a few people every year
Mythbusters covered this (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Mythbusters covered this (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ya well (Score:4, Interesting)
You seem to be unaware that you don't actually need a Concealed Carry permit to carry a shotgun...
You are aware that a shotgun is too big to conceal, right?
It should also be noted that not all that many hunters bother with Concealed Carry, because they don't have any use for them, carrying, as they do, shotguns and rifles, neither of which are concealable....
Drone's Last Words (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Drone's Last Words (Score:4)
Go see the video of the event (Score:5, Informative)
harassment or protest? (Score:5, Insightful)
Context: Personally, I fully support regulated hunting for food, don't like hunting for trophy, and don't like the use of raised birds in a pigeon shoot (which seems to be the practice under scrutiny here).
After watching the video, I think there are two main issues - one (dealt with at length here) is about whether or not it was right and/or legal to shoot down the drone. The second one is whether or not it is right and/or legal for Hindi's group to be harassing the Broxton Bridge Plantation. His tone throughout and his words at the end of the video are clearly harassment - "we have a lot of plans for those people, that much I can guarantee."
If the shoot is legal, then the harassment should be illegal and the goal of Hindi's group should be to change the law through non violent protest and engaging the public (potentially with video).
If the shoot is illegal, then law enforcement should handle it. If they do not, the goal of Hindi's group should be to change the actions of law enforcement officials through non violent protest and engaging the public (potentially with video). The harassment should still be illegal.
I think this group has confused non violent protest against immoral laws with harassment of groups doing things you don't like.
Re:Go see the video of the event (Score:5, Informative)
Their gun permits should be revoked,...
What gun permits are you talking about? Is there any reason to believe that any of these people had concealed carry permits? These were not concealed carry weapons. South Carolina is one of those states that still believes in the Second Amendment. There is no permit necessary to own and/or carry a shotgun in South Carolina.
Animal Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Animal Rights? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Animal Rights? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Animal Rights? (Score:5, Informative)
PETA is currently trying to get the 13th amendment to be applied in the case of five killer whales held by SeaWorld.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16920866 [bbc.co.uk]
Yes, PETA is trying to get antislavery law to be applied against animals, which if successful will seriously change everything...
Re:Animal Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, PETA is trying to get antislavery law to be applied against animals, which if successful will seriously change everything...
No, PETA is just trolling the media for lots of free publicity. They're very good at it.
Re:Animal Rights? (Score:4, Insightful)
All PETA need to do is get a sympathetic judge.
You, however, are stuck with the harsh realities of the only laws of physics we have access to...
Re:Animal Rights? (Score:5, Interesting)
Even a lot of those of us who do eat meat tend to believe that the animals shouldn't be caused unnecessary suffering, which also tends to fall under the "animal rights" label. As for the name, it's similar enough in intent to human rights that the name is appropriate (and even more so for those of us who do not consider human rights to be "God-given", but to be an artificial construct of a rational, civilised society).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Clay pigeons might involve more legal rights than animal pigeons. The clay pigeons may contain intellectual property. (e.g., proprietary shape, proprietary mix of materials, trademarked logo and/or brand name, engineered flight characteristics, etc.)
Then again, shooting a Genetically Modified petri dish pigeon instead of a naturally-gened pigeon just might violate the fine print of a GMO licensing agreement.
Re:Animal Rights? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you don't really unterstand what animal rights activists are fighting for (or you're lame attempt to troll made you look like an arrogant person).
Animal rights activists aren't trying to stop the killing of animals altogether. They are trying to stop the unnecessary killing and torture of animals. Thanks to them, most animals are put asleep/sedated before being killed to be sold as food or used for research (Animal Vivisection [wikipedia.org]). Some people kill or torture animals only for entertainment.
That's just like human rights activists aren't trying to stop the killing of soldiers in wars, they are only tying to reduce the deaths and injuries to people who aren't actively enganged in battles. You should think about reading the Geneva Conventions sometimes.
Re:Animal Rights? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well actually as far as the universe is concerned Humans have no right to anything either, a black hole could wander into our solar system tomorrow and the universe wouldn't even look up from reading the paper no matter how much we cried out about having rights.
Rights of any kind are an artificial construct and so animals and humans can have whatever rights we want to give them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Animal Rights? (Score:5, Informative)
A human has right to live.
Which is why 58 countries have capital punishment [wikipedia.org] and we have been hearing a lot lately about countries from a certain corner of the world respecting the [slashdot.org] shit [slashdot.org] out of this right to live. Oh, I am sorry, what was your point again?
The majority of animal rights activists do not want to abolish the eating of animals. They just want to see them treated as humanely as possible: No unnecessary pain, no killing for fun or sport (as in TFA), no medical experiments, acceptable living conditions. Is that so wrong? Do living creatures who are proven to be capable of feeling pain and distress not have a right to be treated fairly?
Re:Animal Rights? (Score:5, Interesting)
When I take game I am always trying to take it in the quickest most humane way. I practice shooting (I can consistently hit pop cans at a quarter mile with my deer and bear rifle), I know where I have to shoot to get the quick clean kill, I use the appropriate type of ammunition (203gr soft point for deer and bear, #2 to #4 steel shot for pheasant and grouse, 122gr hollow point for rabbit), I will immediately retrieve and clean the animals so they don't spoil (I have a cooler with ice in it back at the vehicle when small game hunting). The deer I got this year was a very quick clean kill with the shot going trough the heart and 1 lung and the deer only made it another 20 yards. From the time I shot it until it was at the butcher was less than 3 hours with a little over 1 hour drive to the processor and I had to clean it and drag it a half mile out of the woods. The same holds true with other in my hunting party, hunting stops for everyone until the game is retrieved, cleaned and on its way, we all help out. One year we spent over an hour looking for a pheasant that we shot and were using 5 dogs, we did retrieve it. I don't want it to go to waste and at the moment with the meat I have the best thing I can do is create the best tasting food I can with it
Re:Animal Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Animals do not have "rights", at least not in the sense humans do.
Legal rights are granted by law, they don't have divine provenance. So if there are laws that protect an animal species, then that species has rights, as far as I can see.
That aside, there is the question of whether it is wrong to kill pigeons or other animal species, no matter what the purpose, and that, I think, is a matter of taste. I don't eat much meat myself, but I can't see that it is wrong for others to do so - humans are not exclusively vegetarians, and if it is OK for lions to kill for food, then it is OK for humans, of course.
However, it is quite common to go hunting simply for fun (like the infamous, English fox hunts); is it desirabe for society to tolerate that mentality? Not in my view. It isn't about whether it causes suffering in an animal or violates its rights, but about whether we want people around us who enjoy killing "for fun". Its a bit like enjoying chopping down trees for fun, or smashing other peoples' cars for fun. Its simply meaningless destruction, and then you also have that uncomfortable feeling that maybe such a person would enjoy killing people too.
Re:Animal Rights? (Score:4, Informative)
However, for some strange reason, animals rights are violated when people kill them -- at least, according to the "animal rights" activists.
I can't speak for all animal rights activists, but I think they're less concerned with the killing than the suffering. Few activists protest against hunts that're necessary to keep the population in check (because the animals would just starve to death when their numbers became too high). One of the most reviled types of hunts are fox hunts, presumably because they're prolonged and stressful to the animal, and done purely for entertainment.
They should have waited. (Score:3)
With the exception of federally-controlled routes, airspace over your property belongs to you, just as (without prior agreements to the contrary), the mineral rights under your property also belong to you.
This is a long-standing legal principle, not just something I made up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They should have waited. (Score:4, Interesting)
If they are using the drone to perform illegal surveillance (it would be illegal in my state anyway), then they have the right to prevent that action, within reason. If that means damaging the equipment that is being used to do it, especially if it is "on" your property (over counts as on), without endangering people, then yes that is almost certainly allowed.
Over the highway? No, they probably didn't have a legal right to shoot it. But depending on the state, the drone operators might still have been breaking the law.
Shot down? (Score:4, Insightful)
I've got a different definition of "shot down"... they managed to land the drone right next to the truck. How shut down is that? This is nothing more than marketing-oriented drama.
But it does raise some serious question on trespassing, surveillance, right to privacy, etc.
Re:Shot down? (Score:5, Insightful)
And notice how they fail to show any pictures of the "gunshot damage".
Who cares (Score:3, Insightful)
PETA is basically a home grown terrorist organization, boo hoo. So they pissed some hunters off, they got what they had coming. No news here.
WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF is a "live pigeon shoot"? Is there a dead pigeon shoot? The point of hunting is to kill something,so it is absurdly redundant. Pigeons are rats with wings and I assume that the species they are hunting there is not protected or endangered, so why not kill them? From what I have seen on TV and from real life, hunters are actually the most humane people when it comes to animals. Most of them take care to not make the animal suffer.
As opposed to clay pigeons (Score:5, Informative)
Usually when people shoot in any sort of practice or competition, it is with clay pigeons. They are just little clay discs that fly pretty well, and shatter very nicely when hit with a shotgun blast. For a live pigeon shoot one would assume they would be using real pigeons.
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
Pigeon shoots are where they capture hundreds of live pigeons, take them to a field somewhere, then release them over a short time span and shoot the shit out of them as they fly away.
I don't really have a problem with hunting, but just killing stuff for the sake of killing it seems really fucked up to me.
Lucky They Weren't Arrested! (Score:4, Informative)
Hindi and his crew were lucky. They should have been arrested. South Carolina has a hunter harassment law.
50-1-137: It is unlawful for a person wilfully to impede or obstruct another person from lawfully hunting, trapping, fishing, or harvesting marine species. Any person violating the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be punished as provided by Section 50-1-130. In addition to the criminal penalty, any person convicted must have his privilege to hunt, trap, fish, or harvest marine species recreationally or commercially revoked for one year.
50-1-130: Unless a different penalty is specified, any person who violates a provision of this title is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than two hundred dollars or imprisoned for not less than ten days nor more than thirty days.
Is the drone okay? (Score:3)
Who cares about people in cars or some stupid pigeons? Is the robot drone okay? Can they save him? I didn't RTFA but can somebody tell me what's the status on its repairs? I hope they don't write it off too quickly and junk it. A drone is a precious thing with a computer and a memory unit and logic circuits and everything. It shouldn't have to be put in danger over some selfish humans' need to save some pigeons.
SHARK should be renamed to "SHow Almighty Robotssomegoddamnrespect and Kindness"
On behalf of the hunters... (Score:4, Insightful)
...I would like to thank the Animal Rights group for providing a far more entertaining target than mere pigeons could ever be.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Arm, it might be a little bit illegal to fly over private property if the sole purpose is to monitor said private property.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:NRA comments aside (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL but I'm a photographer. You are certainly allowed to take pictures of people on private property, permission or not. Typically you'd want to do this from public space, or someplace you have a right to be standing physically (such as the street) - in which case there's nothing your subject can do about it besides closing the curtains (or whatever).
In this case, I guess it hinges on what altitude air rights extend to. There's no legal problem taking photos of someone in private property with an airplane, but I suppose it's different if your airplane or helicopter is only a few feet off the ground and therefore essentially within the private property. But the details given suggest the helicopter was shot down over the road, which is public.
But even if they were in the property the charge is trespassing, not taking photos without permission, and they can't force you to delete the photos (or ruin the film). You can be forced to leave the private property, of course - and I suppose there is a tradition of farmers shooting shotguns off to scare away trespassers, but I'd like to think one wouldn't get away with actually shooting someone who was merely trespassing. Or, you know, simply watching you from the street.
Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (Score:4, Insightful)
The unstated major assumption here is that if someone gets pissed, they are not only entitled to shoot guns into populated areas, but that it is an uncontrollable response. Kind of like rapists aren't at fault if women wear short skirts.
If someone kicked me in the nuts, or prevented me from killing a pigeon, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't feel that entitled me to fire bullets towards a busy highway, because not being 5 years old, I've learnt basic self control. Lack of self control is one of the fundamental reasons children aren't allowed to wield firearms.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean the drone had a mind control ray fitted that made the people shoot their guns in that direction, holy shit!
Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (Score:5, Informative)
#6 Birdshot fired out of a 12 gauge has a maximum effective range of around 40 yards, when shooting birds. I can guarantee there was no danger posed to anyone on that highway, the birdshot never even got close.
Re: (Score:3)
#6 Birdshot fired out of a 12 gauge has a maximum effective range of around 40 yards, when shooting birds. I can guarantee there was no danger posed to anyone on that highway, the birdshot never even got close.
Since the drone crashed on the highway, it was clearly shot from a close enough range to reach the highway...
Re: (Score:3)
I agree that they should have expected the drone to be shot down since a group composed of people who think shooting pigeons amounts to horrific slaughter and devote their excess income and resources to saving them is obviously nuts but your post is eerily similar to the common "The victim asked for it" attitudes some people have about victims of violent crimes, etc.
Maybe you could reword it: "If they spent their resources on saving things worth saving (e.g. starving children, etc.), maybe this incident wou
Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (Score:5, Insightful)
"It didn't work; what SHARK was doing was perfectly legal," Hindi said in a news release. "Once they knew nothing was going to stop us, the shooting stopped and the cars lined up to leave."
TRIED. If launching the drone was against the law then do you not think that the law enforcement officers would have just arrested them as soon as they tried to launch? And shooting at something you don't like the look of because it's over your property is legal where you come from? I assume there are no civil flights, police helicopters, air ambulances, kites...
Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (Score:4, Interesting)
The issue here is that they were denied permission to fly the chopper and did it anyhow. That's the first breach of law. The other issue is that somebody fired a single shot from a small-caliber firearm which seems to have damaged the chopper.
Which article did you read? TFA doesn't say anything about applying for permission; it only says the hunters' lawyer tried to stop them, but failed. TFA also says several shots were fired as soon as the drone was launched.
Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (Score:4, Insightful)
On my property, I expect a right to privacy. If my property and privacy is invaded after I deny permission, then your flying camera is merely a "peeping tom tool" at this point.
Expect your little toy to be damaged...and...don't EVEN try to equate it with a piloted commercial aircraft with human lives on board. The attempt just illustrates the weakness of your logic.
That's just plane wrong. (pun intended)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
On my property, I expect a right to privacy. If my property and privacy is invaded after I deny permission, then your flying camera is merely a "peeping tom tool" at this point.
So you think they were justified in taking the law in their own hands?
Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (Score:5, Informative)
On my property, I expect a right to privacy. If my property and privacy is invaded after I deny permission, then your flying camera is merely a "peeping tom tool" at this point.
Expect your little toy to be damaged...and...don't EVEN try to equate it with a piloted commercial aircraft with human lives on board. The attempt just illustrates the weakness of your logic.
That's just plane wrong. (pun intended)
You have no reasonable expectation of privacy from overflying aircraft. Florida v. Riley, IIRC, was the name of the SCOTUS case that established that. YMMV, and consult an attorney for applicable state law. (State constitutions or other law may grant you different rights, although that likely gets tricky in a federally regulated area like aviation.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"In fact the redneck "I shoot trespassers" is illegal, and it will get you not only in prison but the trespasser will probably own your land after the judge rakes you over the coals in court"
You might want to look into that. The legal outcome depends both on the circumstances of the shooting and the state where said individual has been shot.
Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (Score:5, Funny)
In fact the redneck "I shoot trespassers" is illegal
I thought you had Castle Doctrine in most of your states..?
As for here in the UK, you get thrown in jail if you don't offer the burglar a cup of tea after he tires of murdering your children.
Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (Score:5, Informative)
you are wrong as nobody would be able to fly private aircraft and hot air balloons.
And yes I know this, I was a private pilot. I'm not tresspassing until I am below the tree line.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"actually YES, same with nation borders. anything that is considered open skies above your property (as i recall 15,000 feet and below) is considered private air space and you can be charged with trespassing."
I see. Ultralights, copters and balloons just fly along roads and highways then according to your logic.
Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (Score:5, Informative)
Given that the article says it crashed onto the highway, and helicopters aren't known for gliding, I'd say they were on top of the highway.
Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (Score:5, Informative)
Given that the article says it crashed onto the highway, and helicopters aren't known for gliding, I'd say they were on top of the highway.
Their video [youtube.com] shows the drone flying away from the highway, then returning towards the highway presumably after it was shot at; around 2:15 in the video, it looks like it took some damage to one of the rotors, so it was perhaps damaged enough to no longer maintain altitude, but not enough to prevent them bringing it back under some control.
Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (Score:5, Insightful)
So, does that mean I can smash up your stuff on say, a public beach?
Also, note that the "hunters" in question were shooting birds being released from boxes. There was little of the hunt about this. Kind of like a clay pigeon shoot, but with live birds. So, while I support the second amendment, let's not pretend that these were noble hunters foraging for food for their families.
Youtube video. (Score:5, Informative)
(unexciting) Youtube video of the shootdown can be found on the SHARK youtube channel [youtube.com].
Doesn't look like they were trespassing.
Re:Youtube video. (Score:5, Informative)
Trespassing needn't apply.
There is an expectation of privacy on your own property. Just where the line is drawn can be iffy at times. In my media law course this was called the tree principle.
1) You are allowed to take a photo of a person from the sidewalk (public property) if they are in their yard or even through the window with a normal lens. Nothing different than what anyone else could see.
2) Zoom lens, pushing the expectation of public view if they are inside and you are looking through a window.
3) Climbing a tree in the public area to get a better view through the second story with a zoom lens? You might be able to argue it, but don't be surprised when a cop comes looking for you.
At least that is sort of the old standards. Tabloids and public figures are able to push this all to whole different realms than with private citizens/groups. This is a drone, part of the new paradigm. Being an airborne camera/vehicle that can see farther, it has a whole different standard of "public" than a person with a SLR by its very nature. So does someone in a glider, gyro-copter, helicopter, etc.
Expect a lawsuit eventually over whether drones in private hands should count more towards the person in the tree standards or filming from public air space in helicopter standards.
Battery as a response. (Score:5, Insightful)
Generally speaking, you're not allowed to commit battery in defense of privacy alone. It would need to be trespass to justify that.
And you're certainly not allowed to use lethal force, much less destroy another person's chattels over public property.
Re:Battery as a response. (Score:5, Informative)
Webster's Unabridged:
"Law. an unlawful attack upon another person by beating or wounding, or by touching in an offensive manner."
Re:Battery as a response. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Battery as a response. (Score:4, Informative)
Is releasing drugged game from boxes and then shooting them at close range really illegal?
FTFY
Re:Youtube video. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Youtube video. (Score:5, Interesting)
No. If you hunted & killed it yourself for fun, then fuck you.
There are people all over the world who hunt and kill their own food. If I was in a position of need, I would not hesitate to take a rabbit or turkey.
There's a big difference between hunting and killing to eat and hunting and killing for sport. They even call themselves "sportsmen". If something has to die for your entertainment, there is something wrong with you.
I've spent time on a farm. I witnessed and participated in slaughter of animals for food. There was no sense of "sport" or "entertainment" involved. And (this is important) no trophies kept. No glory claimed. And if the plan was to butcher a pig, there were no extra pigs slaughtered for self-aggrandizement. It was for food, not fun.
Re:Youtube video. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're tromping around with weapons killing stuff, you're "expectation of privacy" is somewhat attenuated
I have a friend who lives on fifteen acres he owns. Why should his right to privacy be negated on his own property just because he's carrying a perfectly legal tool?
Those pheasants you just blew into pieces were probably expecting a little privacy, too.
They' not people. AFAIK humans are the only species with the concept of "privacy".
a pretty tolerant person, but blood sport is one of my bright red lines. It puts you in a special category. It's not that I care so much about animals, that I'm some animal hugger. I eat polish sausage, which I am told contains something that was once an animal (and judging from my digestive reaction, an animal that died of ebola).
Most hunters eat what they kill. So you're OK with eating that pig that was raised in inhumane conditions and killed, but you're not OK with killing it yourself? There's a bit of a disconnect there, don't you think?
Hunting is in our blood. Hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of years of evolution is at play here.
There's nothing whatever wrong with hunting. To be an anti-hunting omnivore smacks of hypocricy.
Re:Youtube video. (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't have any problem with him carrying a "legal tool". I'm a handgun owner and a shooter. I've killed more bottles than a thirsty wino. When skeet see me coming down the street they run and hide. I love guns. I was at the range on Sunday, in fact. I practice for the day a hunter steps on to my property. I want to make sure I'm a good enough shot to scare him off without blowing his brains out.
The problem doesn't start when your friend carries a gun. The problem starts when he kills for fun.
Forty years ago, people believed that humans were the only species that experienced pain. (It's true). If you don't think an animal has a concept of privacy, why do you think animals camouflage their nests? And you're still missing the point. I don't loathe hunters because I'm so sentimental about animals. I loathe them because killing for fun is creepy. If something has to die for you to have a good time, then I would like round the clock surveillance on you. One of the reasons I like camo gear is because it allows easy identification of assholes.
I said I don't have a problem with killing an animal to eat. My problem comes with killing for "sport". Killing to eat is part of the world. Killing for fun is sick.
There may have been a time when the "fun" part of killing was an evolutionary adaptation. In the post-apocalyptic zombie future, we may once again need this adaptation. Until then, I want a Google maps overlay of the whereabouts and movements of every hunter. Better yet, let's set aside a few thousand acres and let them hunt each other. Put aside the pretense. Let's see them put some skin in the game. I would say "Make it pay-per-view and give the proceeds to food banks", but I believe that would be going a little over the top.
Re:Youtube video. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but the adaptation didn't go away just because we moved to cities and packed our meat in plastic.
I'd rather the people who have the hunting impulse most strongly exercise it responsibly, trying to suppress strong biological impulses completely usually results in them coming out sideways to the detriment of everyone involved.
Re:Youtube video. (Score:4, Informative)
Here, let me help you.
If you start with the Wikipedia entry "Pain in Animals" you'll find this paragraph:
I invite you to follow the citations to original sources provided in that paragraph. Those little numbers in brackets at the end of sentences are links to scholarly documents addressing the specific assertion of the sentence.
Satisfied? Let me know if you're still having trouble and I'll get you some more citations. I'll even show you how to find such citations yourself. It only took me about 15 seconds to find these.
Do you still not believe my assertion that "forty years ago, people believed that humans were the only species that experienced pain."?
Re:Youtube video. (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally I really hate seeing stories like this as it gives all hunters a bad name when only a few are the problem, most of the general population doesn't much care for hunters as is so we don't need more bad press. When I am out with my hunting group we are always pulling trash, cans, and other stuff out of the woods and fields that other people left behind. Hell last year I turned in a poacher who was hunting from an illegal stand, bating, had taken 5 deer already (in a 2 deer area), and had been doing more drinking in his stand than hunting because I don't want people like that hunting.
Re:Youtube video. (Score:5, Funny)
Then let me know next time you have sex and I'll come over with my video camera.
Read the article ... (Score:5, Insightful)
http://thetandd.com/animal-rights-group-says-drone-shot-down/article_017a720a-56ce-11e1-afc4-001871e3ce6c.html [thetandd.com]
According to the article the drone was hovering over the U.S. 601 (a public road) when it was shot down. It was filming events on private property, but it was not out of bounds in itself .
That ought to address both your question and the snarky remark of the parent post.
I'm afraid this shows that those "hunters" with guns abused their privilege of toting rifles when they felt annoyed. It also illustrates the aggression these people display (as in: "they see something they don't like, so they shoot at it").
As a consequence I believe they cannot be trusted with firearms and therefore ought to lose that privilege (i.e. their gun license).
Re:Read the article ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or they heard a shot and the crashed the drone.
BTW they where not 'toting rifles' they where toting shotguns. Shotguns are smooth bore guns and not rifled so they can not be rifles.
So a group was using a drone to harass people acting in a legal way on private property. Gee if the legal activity was not hunting then I bet people would be all cheering the people that supposedly took down the "drone" for protecting their rights.
BTW radio controlled copters crash all the time. The prop damage shown looks like it was caused by a crash to me.
Oh and flying a radio controlled aircraft over a public road is frowned on by the AMA. It could crash and hurt people so flying it over the road to start with is a good bit more dangerous than shooting bird shot into the air.
For the record I am not into hunting and do not own a gun. I feel no need for firearm in my life, I just find the willingness to accept a drone harassing people on private property just because you do not like what they are doing to be hypocritical.
Missing the point ... (Score:5, Insightful)
(2),(3) As noted by previous posts, the issue of flying that drone over a public road (something I definitely don't endorse; I fully agree with you there) is an issue between the authorities and those activists. Those hunters have no part in that.
All that they are entitled to do is report this incident to the sheriff (who was standing right next to those activists as it seems from the article) and complain of harassment and possible of endangering traffic by flying a drone over the road. After that it's up to the authorities to prosecute. Not those hunters.
(4) Those hunters shot at something that wasn't on or over the tract of land on which they were licensed to hunt on, and it wasn't the stuff they were licensed to hunt either.
And about the right to bear arms: that is not at issue here. People in the US do have the right to bear arms, but with that right comes responsibility. It cannot be otherwise. If you abuse your rights, then there are consequences. For example: forfeiting your rights.
I believe that someone who is so easily goaded into turning a gun from its legitimate purpose should not be allowed to carry it.
Re:Read the article ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a better idea. All drones are to be registered licensed with with the FAA. Before flying a drone outside of a non-approved training facility, a certain quantity of flying hours must be logged under supervision by a licensed professional. Before a craft is purchased, a background check and 7 day hold is required. A statement of intended use shall be recorded, and depending on jurisdiction, a local judge or sheriff shall have final say over the issuance of the permit for any specific craft.
Really? All of that just so my ten year old kid can fly his crappy $20 Air Hogs toy? What? You didn't think this through? Really? It didn't show...
Re:Hovering over a highway? (Score:4, Insightful)
The little hobby is going to get a lot of people in trouble. There are much larger drones that will be used for things like crop dusting, hunting for lost children, and governmental surveillance activities. I frankly believe that the use of drones and even satellites are invasions of privacy. The seeming convenience of satellite imagery is the same slippery slope that makes Google to usurp your privacy, and the dignities that privacy provides for profit.
Some hobbies need limits imposed on them. I believe that this is one of them. Limiting trespassing is the option of the property owner or controller. I believe that the right should be respected, and in all three dimensions.
Crime rate and gun permits (Score:4, Insightful)
Like the violent crime rates and the incidences of murder.
If the data here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org] and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate [wikipedia.org] give any indication, then crime rates for violent crime and murder in New York (581.7 and 6.4) are lower than in e.g. Mobile, Alabama (667.0 and 9.8) and Boston, Massachusetts (903.5 and 11.3).
So this data doesn't provide any support for your idea that strict gun control laws might somehow result in higher crime rates.
I'm not claiming that it shows that gun control laws reduce crime rates (I believe that the situation is much more complicated than that and should take account of a broad range of socio-economic and historic conditions), but judging by the crime rates it certainly doesn't seem to hurt.
Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (Score:5, Insightful)
And if women didn't walk around dressed like sluts, they wouldn't get raped.
That's true, but how does this relate to the conversation?
Analogies are almost always a bad way to discuss, but I'm more disturbed by your "that's true" statement. This is the Burka argument, women should cover up or else men won't be able to control themselves from raping them. Not trying to insult your faith if you are a conservative muslim, but so disagree with this blame the victim approach.
It is also false to claim that you won't get raped if you cover up, look into real research and statistics on rape and you'll find that it is by far not a majority of the rape crimes that fall into this stereotype category. Most rape researches would tell you it is actually usually not driven by the sex, but the use of force, domination, humiliation, pent up anger, partly similar to other violent (and hate) crimes.
Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (Score:5, Insightful)
The rapist is like a wild animal - you have to protect yourself from it. If covering up reduces the chance or you being raped even by 1%, then you should probably cover up. After all, if you do get raped, it won't matter that the rapist will go to prison - you will still be raped (compared to theft where police may be able to recover your property).
This is absolutely horrific thinking, if I can even dignify this drivel with such a description. There may be people at bars who may make friends with you with a view to killing you and keeping your head in the freezer, so if you do go to a bar, it is _your_ fault?
Fuck me dead with a goose, this is such Ye Olde thinking, it disturbs me beyond words that people would even spout such shit in a day such as this.
A rapist is "like a wild animal"? No, he is a civilised human being. In all likelihood, you know several, and have slapped them cheerfully on the back, since you are clearly clueless as regarding how duplicitous the "civilised" person can be.
Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (Score:5, Funny)
And if women didn't walk around dressed like sluts, they wouldn't get raped.
That's true, but how does this relate to the conversation?
There were women there walking around dressed like pigeons.
Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (Score:5, Funny)
I think its a valid analogy.
In that case, they shouldn't have shot the drone... they should have beaten the drones father for failing to teach it proper behavior.
Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't, I let the dog bite the kid, pull the dog back because the kid will most likely get a single bite. you see I'm a responsible pet owner and have all it's shots so the kid will at most get a couple of teeth punctures, most of the time far less than that. Or do you run dog fighting kennels where they are trained to maul? Because I train them from puppy to NOT hurt anyone.
So now the kid understands not to tease an animal and the child has actually learned something.
let me guess if your kid puts a fork in an electrical outlet and get's shocked you shoot the house? What a shitty parent you are.
Differing norms cause rape (Score:4, Insightful)
Right. And if chicks didn't dress all slutty, they wouldn't get all raped, AMIRITE?
Do you people understand rape IS NOT the woman's fault? How ignorant do you have to be to understand rape is because the rapist is a sick fuck, not because of how the woman is dressed.
Actually, most rapes probably occur because of miscommunication. A guy was never taught that the behavior he is engaged in is rape, and maybe his support network doesn't characterize it as rape, so he doesn't realize it's rape. A girl feels violated by something like what the guy considers to be rape, that she (or her support network) consider to be rape, under the same behavior. Ask a dozen different people what happened based on the same facts, you'll get wildly divergent answers as to whether or not there was rape. The problem is that we have an idea of what "rape" is in society, and it's stranger rape, which isn't what rape really is. The problem is we have conflicting beliefs as to what behavior is okay and what behavior isn't. Labeling a rapist a sick fuck is probably usually wrong. Usually rape occurs because of miscommunication and either unclear or incorrect social norms, not because of any mental deformity. If we made rape education as big a priority as rape punishment--or perhaps bigger--we would see a bigger reduction in the amount of rape than we do from punishment.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
why couldn't a bullet hit one of the animal huggers?
Do you have any idea how bad hippie tastes?
Re:HAHAHAA (Score:4, Insightful)
Your photo links to an event on the 18th. Information from the article leads to the incident occurring on the 12th.
Re:Just wondering... (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, people are missing out on the obvious business opportunity here. Shooting at clay pigeons is boring. Why not get a fleet of armored drones and get people to PAY to shoot at them? You could have competitions among pilots to see how long they can last without getting shot, and make people PAY for that as well. I'm sure the hunters in this case were high-fiving each other like crazy. C'mon peeps, if you can't fight 'em, join 'em!
Re:Who is liable for a accidentally crashed drone? (Score:5, Interesting)
Forget the hunters. What if some Bozo flying a drone manages to crash it causing significant damage somewhere? Sue the Bozo? Naw, he ain't got no money. Sue the manufacturing for selling a dangerous product?
How do serious RC flyers handle this? Fly only over club owned land? Maybe a collective liability insurance for members?
The AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics) is the national organization that most RC fliers are members of. They carry a liability insurance policy which covers members in the event of aero-modeling related accidents, as long as the member complied with the AMA code of conduct - which prohibits flying in the manner these people did. Flying over land that's not yours, or in a manner that could result in crashing on a roadway or other occupied area, is a violation. These guys created a much greater public hazard than the hunters. In fact, having seen the video, the hunters did not break any of the standard rules of gun safety and caused no hazard at all. The helicopter was well above and also to the side of all bystanders, such that falling shot would have landed far from any of the people.
Re:This is hardly surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, I will bite. I hunt.
First of all, most of the hunters are not cowards. They are ordinary people, living pretty ordinary lives. They are no more brave, nor less brave than most people. Technically, anybody who has set a rat trap in their house is a hunter.
The matter of fairness in hunting is not an easy one. Most hunters have different takes on it. The vast majority does not consider hunting using airplanes reasonable, for example. I believe that most think wearing protective clothing against the elements is reasonable. What people consider fair also depends a lot on what and where they hunt, strangely enough. To go back to the rat trap... Do you think it's fair to the rat? Or would you prefer to kill the rat with your bare hands? Is it fair to use bait? To place the trap where the rat would usually be, or should the trap be placed somewhere else?
To me hunting isn't some kind of primal test of the abilities of my body against the abilities of an animal. It's a matter of using what the land provides. It's a matter of removing animals that causes problems with our way of life as well as gathering meat. I have no wish to bring extra suffering to the animals I hunt just because I don't use the correct tools for the job. Of course it's not fair. All predators are unfair, or they would not survive. Still the vast majority of the animals we hunt gets away. A few are unlucky, or make a bad decision.
Something I just can't help wonder is... Do you eat meat? Have you thought through the ethics of keeping animals confined for the single purpose of killing them and eating them? Compared to that I believe hunting is a better alternative from an ethical standpoint.