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."
Go see the video of the event (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I wonder if pigeons will evolve (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Animal Rights? (Score:2, Informative)
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: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)
#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.
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.
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:Animal Rights? (Score:0, Informative)
A human has right to live
The US president disagrees. After implementing NDAA, it is legal for anyone to be killed anywhere in the world without due process.
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:If they hadn't brought their drone (Score:1, Informative)
All of the retarded bullshit that you bring up at the end of your post (the crap that was written about in order to back agendas, and has been shot down by real research multiple times) has to do with the massive majority of rapes - those perpetrated by family members, significant others, friends or acquaintances. Also, the rise of false rape claims by women has been inflating their statistics because those false claims get counted along with the rest - it's better for business to do it that way.
You may or may not have been informing people of the same things that I just mentioned, I really can't tell from your horrible use of the language.
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.
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.
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: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.
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.
Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (Score:3, Informative)
http://idle.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2682739&cid=39108527
http://idle.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2682739&cid=39108897
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.)
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
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.
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:3, Informative)
Re:Youtube video. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Mythbusters covered this (Score:5, Informative)
Re:They should have waited. (Score:2, Informative)
(A) It is unlawful for a person to be an eavesdropper or a peeping tom on or about the premises of another or to go upon the premises of another for the purpose of becoming an eavesdropper or a peeping tom. The term "peeping tom", as used in this section, is defined as a person who peeps through windows, doors, or other like places, on or about the premises of another, for the purpose of spying upon or invading the privacy of the persons spied upon and any other conduct of a similar nature, that tends to invade the privacy of others. The term "peeping tom" also includes any person who employs the use of video or audio equipment for the purposes set forth in this section. A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(B) A person commits the crime of voyeurism if, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire of any person, he or she knowingly views, photographs, audio records, video records, produces, or creates a digital electronic file, or films another person, without that person's knowledge and consent, while the person is in a place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. A person who violates the provisions of this subsection:
(1) for a first offense, is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; or
(2) for a second or subsequent offense, is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than five hundred dollars or more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(C) A person commits the crime of aggravated voyeurism if he or she knowingly sells or distributes any photograph, audio recording, video recording, digital electronic file, or film of another person taken or made in violation of this section. A person who violates the provisions of this subsection is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than five hundred dollars or more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
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:Youtube video. (Score:2, Informative)
and you're confusing animals for people. Just like a kid who might confuse "television" for "real life"
I understand you like animals. I like animals too, but calling sport hunters "proto serial killers" is childish and misleading. Animals (especially wild ones) have a certain expectation of death every day. Killing another animal for pleasure is not illegal or uncommon -- otherwise we'd have to ban/exterminate house cats because that's their favorite past time!
Do the sadistic find pleasure in killing an animal? Certainly. That's why finding disected animals in a neighborhood is a huge warning sign of a serial killer in training. Does that make everyone who kills/hunts animals sadistic? No. There are not 50 million serial killers in the US. This reality may be inconvenient to your way of thinking, but it is correct and it's time you grew up and accepted it.
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)
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."?