Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Idle

Hunters Shoot Down Drone of Animal Rights Group 1127

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the thought-it-was-a-cyber-pigeon dept.
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This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hunters Shoot Down Drone of Animal Rights Group

Comments Filter:
  • by kyrio (1091003) <`moc.eromkrul' `ta' `todhsals'> on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @06:12AM (#39108191) Homepage
    If they hadn't brought their drone along, the hunters wouldn't have been shooting in the direction of a highway.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @06:15AM (#39108195)

    Also, how far away from the highway were they? You could be 10 miles away and still "shoot towards it".
    And I'm curious if the animal huggers were trespassing on the private land - if so, they should be arrested.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @06:16AM (#39108207)

    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?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @06:17AM (#39108211)

    So that makes it ok?

    "If the two-year old hadn't been standing in front of the bad guy, he would never have been shot! Stupid two-year old!"

    What kind of backward logic is that?

  • bird shot (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stoolpigeon (454276) * <bittercode@gmail> on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @06:18AM (#39108219) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • Animal Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Maimun (631984) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @06:26AM (#39108257)
    Animals do not have "rights", at least not in the sense humans do. A human has right to live. A pigeon does not have that right -- if one believes otherwise, one has to prevent pigeons from being killed by predators. The "animal rights" activists agree (I think; I have met a few of those) that it is OK animals to kill each other (which they do all the time anyway) and no "rights violation" happens when a hawk kills a pigeon. However, for some strange reason, animals rights are violated when people kill them -- at least, according to the "animal rights" activists. Go figure...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @06:27AM (#39108261)

    So that makes it ok?

    "If the two-year old hadn't been standing in front of the bad guy, he would never have been shot! Stupid two-year old!"

    What kind of backward logic is that?

    The same backwards logic that let them violate the airspace rules and launch the "drone" in the first place.

    Two wrongs don't make a right. 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.

    Despite the knee-jerk reactionary statements on here, the firing of the weapon did not seem to violate any laws, as the law enforcement officials filed this as "Malicious destruction of property" and not an illegal firearms discharge or any type of Endangering of Public Safety.

  • by Robert Zenz (1680268) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @06:30AM (#39108279) Homepage

    Arm, it might be a little bit illegal to fly over private property if the sole purpose is to monitor said private property.

  • by ooloogi (313154) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @06:31AM (#39108291)
    Is there a difference between flying the helicopter, and flying bird shot by launching it from a shotgun? So then there was a collision between the two unmanned flying objects, and they both fell to the ground.
  • Shot down? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by geogob (569250) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @06:38AM (#39108329)

    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.

  • by JosKarith (757063) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @06:40AM (#39108345)
    "law enforcement officers and an attorney claiming to represent the privately-owned plantation near Ehrhardt tried to stop the aircraft from flying.
    "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...
  • by 91degrees (207121) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @06:41AM (#39108347) Journal
    Someone else's property being on your property doesn't give you ownership of it. Just because someone uses my driveway to turn around in doesn't mean I get to destroy their car.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @06:41AM (#39108351)

    If they hadn't brought their drone along, the hunters wouldn't have been shooting in the direction of a highway.

    Totally agree. Similarly, if the shoppers hadn't been at the mall, the mass shooter wouldn't have anyone to shoot at. Of course you should expect people to shoot at will if it is there. duh.

  • by Tim C (15259) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @06:43AM (#39108365)
    What are you, 12? Over here in the adult world we're responsible for our own actions. There was no need for the hunters to shoot at the drone (it wasn't a danger to them they were just pissed off), so trying to blame the inherent riskiness of the hunters' actions on the operator of the drone is facile.
  • Who cares (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @06:50AM (#39108407)

    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.

  • by Ice Tiger (10883) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @06:50AM (#39108411)

    You mean the drone had a mind control ray fitted that made the people shoot their guns in that direction, holy shit!

  • WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chicken_Kickers (1062164) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @06:51AM (#39108415)

    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.

  • Re:Animal Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AC-x (735297) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @06:52AM (#39108425)

    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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @06:55AM (#39108443)

    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)

    by Ice Tiger (10883) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @06:57AM (#39108457)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @06:58AM (#39108469)

    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)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @07:03AM (#39108515)

    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:Shot down? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rhook (943951) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @07:07AM (#39108543)

    And notice how they fail to show any pictures of the "gunshot damage".

  • by penguinchris (1020961) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (sirhcniugnep)> on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @07:09AM (#39108551) Homepage

    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:HAHAHAA (Score:4, Insightful)

    by zalas (682627) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @07:09AM (#39108555) Homepage

    Your photo links to an event on the 18th. Information from the article leads to the incident occurring on the 12th.

  • by Lumpy (12016) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @07:14AM (#39108583) Homepage

    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.

  • by Lumpy (12016) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @07:23AM (#39108651) Homepage

    Sucks to be you. I can take photos of you on your property when I am standing on public land. Heck I cant take photos through your windows as long as I don't trespass, yes I have a lens that can do that, and I can fly things over your property. Maybe you should be far less ignorant and actually learn the law. In fact I can fly a hot air balloon over your house and take photos, and you will go to "ass rape" prison if you shoot at me. 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. And that little toy, yes they can legally sue you for property damage and you will need to pay for damages.

    I am unsure of if I am violating wiretapping laws if I bounce a laser listener off of one of your windows and listened in on your conversations, that one I need to look up, but I certainly would not be trespassing.

    If you think you have privacy on your "private land" you are very poorly educated in the matter.

  • by nospam007 (722110) * on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @07:26AM (#39108673)

    "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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @07:29AM (#39108687)

    "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:Animal Rights? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Green Salad (705185) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @07:35AM (#39108719) Homepage

    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)

    by Richard_at_work (517087) <richardpriceNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @07:35AM (#39108725)

    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...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @07:54AM (#39108841)

    If your kid broke into my yard to torment my dog and got bit - I'd be suing you and your kid for tresspass & attempting to rob my place. Hell, why not just shoot the kid for attempting to rob the place and damaging valuable property (the dog) then sue you the cost of the rounds used to stop your kid being a criminal.

    OR, you could teach your kid to be a responsible member of society and not be a dick like her father. The problem is people who are dicks tend not to be able to teach others now not to be one.

  • Re:Animal Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jandersen (462034) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @07:57AM (#39108867)

    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:Ya well (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bagorange (1531625) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @08:18AM (#39108985)

    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.

  • by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @08:18AM (#39108989)

    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.

  • by gatkinso (15975) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @08:19AM (#39108997)

    ...I would like to thank the Animal Rights group for providing a far more entertaining target than mere pigeons could ever be.

  • by BlortHorc (305555) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @08:21AM (#39109013)

    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.

  • by Ginger Unicorn (952287) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @08:22AM (#39109023)

    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:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @08:24AM (#39109049)

    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.

  • by golodh (893453) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @08:27AM (#39109073)
    The original article can be found here:

    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:Youtube video. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DaveV1.0 (203135) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @08:45AM (#39109213) Journal

    I don't care if they were trespassing. The activists were in the wrong. They were attempting to invade other people's privacy. I guarantee you would want to shoot down a drone that was operated by someone you KNEW was trying to invade your privacy

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @08:55AM (#39109295)

    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.

  • by Vidar Leathershod (41663) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @09:14AM (#39109431)

    Ah! How clever.

    Stage 1: We don't want you shooting pigeons, so we will harass and intimidate you with this handy dandy camera attached to a helicopter drone. We will use this to record and display to the public your activities on the land that you own or control.

    Stage 2: Law enforcement officials advise us to stop, and attorneys representing you try to assert your private property expectation of privacy. You stop your pigeon shoot, and people start to leave your "event".

    Stage 3: We launch anyway, since hey, we brought this cool toy all the way here. Might as well record you not breaking any laws on your own property. We will stop when we are good and ready.

    Stage 4: You have foiled our fiendish plot by destroying our precious pigeon freedom fighter robot ally. However, since we carefully placed it *over a highway* (but we managed not to crash it ourselves, you must now forfeit your right to keep and bear arms. Oh, also: "We are already making plans for a considerably upscaled action in 2013." That's right, let's escalate the situation. No duty to retreat, right?

    This is why the founding fathers enshrined weapon ownership in the Bill of Rights. 200-plus years ago, they recognized that tyrants would always seek to seize the weapons of the people.

    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. All air traffic rules must be obeyed. Hovering or flying along places of public transit (roadways, walkways, bike paths) is strictly prohibited, to lessen risk to those individuals traveling on said routes should the craft crash or lose control.

    The drone may not be used to harass or intimidate another person. Such action will result in forfeiture of craft and license, as well as possible criminal charges and jail time, depending on intent. All transfers of craft shall be effected through a Federally-licensed aircraft dealer.

    That's a start. But as various abuses of these craft by individuals with strange agendas continue, we will expand the laws covering the use of them, and certainly ban their ownership in certain communities altogether.

  • Re:Youtube video. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @09:16AM (#39109455) Homepage
    Also depending on the state law they may have committed a criminal offense. In Minnesota it is illegal to interfere with the legal taking of game so I would assume that if South Carolina has a similar law the activists would be in violation of that as well.

    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.
  • by Defenestrar (1773808) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @09:21AM (#39109511)

    ... As a consequence I believe they cannot be trusted with firearms and therefore ought to lose that privilege (i.e. their gun license).

    And what license would that be? And what privilege are you referring to? In the US one generally does not need a license to own certain weapons (particularly hunting rifles/shotguns), and the reason for this is the constitutional amendment explicitly affirming the right of a citizen to be in possession of weapons. As long as these persons were not disenfranchised by the courts (i.e. certain levels of criminal conviction), they no more need a license to own these weapons than they do for cellular respiration.

    Now you could have suggested there be a citation for vandalism, destruction of property, discharge of a firearm w/in a certain distance of a public road, or suggested a mandatory re-education in hunter's safety, forfeiture of hunting licenses (if either of the previous two applied, which considering the group it is likely) and given your interpretation of just cause.

    Now if you are from another country I can understand how a different background in what constitutes a citizen's rights could lead to your confusion here, but if you wish to have truly meaningful comments I'd suggest you try to understand the context first. If you are a US citizen, then I suggest some remedial education in: citizen rights, the US Constitution, and how to present an intelligible argument.

    Please note that I have not taken any position on the actual events described in this article, just great exception to the implicit assumptions in your subtext.

  • Re:Ya well (Score:4, Insightful)

    by willaien (2494962) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @09:26AM (#39109563)

    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.

  • by gtall (79522) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @09:42AM (#39109735)

    Unless you are going 60-70 mph when you run into a windshield full of #6 Birdshot that is raining down on the highway because someone figured it wouldn't matter.

  • by golodh (893453) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @09:44AM (#39109757)
    (1) What exactly do you mean by "harrassing"? As far as I read, that drone was over a public road, not over private property. That those hunters dislike being filmed shooting birds doesn't mean they are being "harassed".

    (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: why drunken? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by macraig (621737) <mark...a...craig@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @09:51AM (#39109831)

    I agree that what the hunters did was wrong, but not sure why you would imply they were drunken.

    He was confirming and reinforcing his own bias. It's ad hominem; he was marginalizing his perceived opponents. You should know what comes next (and it did). If there's anyone who should truly be marginalized, it's people who engage in this mental tactic and delusional thinking.

  • by LWATCDR (28044) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @09:54AM (#39109863) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • Re:Ya well (Score:3, Insightful)

    by macraig (621737) <mark...a...craig@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @09:57AM (#39109887)

    Congratulations on having a tribe of buddies who will mod you a +5 Informative even for using ad hominem - "drunken idiot hunters" - to marginalize others and reinforce your own bias. The alleged idiocy of the hunters is not really made apparent by your remarks, but those remarks certainly make your own idiocy apparent.

  • by pehrs (690959) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @10:07AM (#39109997)

    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.

  • Re:Youtube video. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Squiddie (1942230) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @10:16AM (#39110097)
    If you can watch it from the highway, it is generally understood that it's fair game. The hunters here were wrong to damage other's property. The simple fact is that they had no expectation of privacy, nor should they have. If these were pot farmers, and they were spotted by the police in a helicopter, or by using a drone, no warrant would be required. It's "in plain sight." Hippies they may be, but a crime has been committed against them.
  • by PhloppyPhallus (250291) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @10:23AM (#39110159) Homepage

    The 600' minimum ceiling doesn't even apply to manned helicopters, and it certainly doesn't apply to a "drone" which is being flown unlicensed as a remote control aircraft; can you imagine if everyone had to fly R/C aircraft over 600' AGL? Come on! The R/C aircraft rules only apply to vehicles used for recreational use; I don't know how this use is classified. Unmanned aircraft never fall under FAA rules, though; under the current FAA framework, if they aren't military and they aren't recreational, they aren't allowed to fly.

    It was inappropriate, although perhaps not illegal, to get into a sustained hover over a highway--these sorts of vehicles just aren't that reliable, and a simultaneous loss of control and power could have killed someone. Likewise, it was definitely wrong to shoot at the drone; it posed no threat to the hunters and the police had already been alerted to their actions. In the end, no real harm done, but both sides were acting like children.

  • by bityz (2011656) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @10:25AM (#39110185)

    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:Youtube video. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mcgrew (92797) * on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @10:30AM (#39110241) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by postbigbang (761081) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @10:54AM (#39110555)

    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.

  • by Hydian (904114) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @10:56AM (#39110577)

    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...

  • by jythie (914043) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @11:37AM (#39111301)
    That if you have money, guns, and are white, then you have the moral high ground, or at minimal get what you want.
  • by Oligonicella (659917) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @11:51AM (#39111511)
    Actually, no. The message is that intrusive busy-bodies attempting to disrupt a completely legal gathering of participants enjoying a completely legal activity should expect to get treated as such.

    If some asshole was spying on me just because I was doing something they disapproved of, I'd shoot down their fucking helicopter too.

    Besides, it's not really their fault. It was the activist's ignorance that did it. One of them was named Skeeter and another shouted to him for something.

    What happened then, was inevitable.
  • Re:Youtube video. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by randomencounter (653994) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @12:07PM (#39111771)

    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.

  • by golodh (893453) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @12:52PM (#39112549)
    This seems to be one of those times where the popular idea of what "we all can see how well that has worked for their crime rates" is dead wrong.

    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.

  • by forkfail (228161) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @02:09PM (#39113711)

    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.

  • by Mike Van Pelt (32582) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @03:46PM (#39114925)
    Especially if you're throwing your baseball into my yard for the specific purpose of disrupting my garden party, because you have a moral objection to garden parties.

To be a kind of moral Unix, he touched the hem of Nature's shift. -- Shelley

Working...