Slashdot Mirror
Hunters Shoot Down Drone of Animal Rights Group
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."
If they hadn't brought their drone along, the hunters wouldn't have been shooting in the direction of a highway.
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 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.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
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...
Arm, it might be a little bit illegal to fly over private property if the sole purpose is to monitor said private property.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Your photo links to an event on the 18th. Information from the article leads to the incident occurring on the 12th.
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.
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.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
...I would like to thank the Animal Rights group for providing a far more entertaining target than mere pigeons could ever be.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
http://thetandd.com/animal-rights-group-says-drone-shot-down/article_017a720a-56ce-11e1-afc4-001871e3ce6c.html
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).
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
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
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.
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.
Time to offend someone
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.
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Free Martian Whores!
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.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
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.
Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
Like the violent crime rates and the incidences of murder.
If the data here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate 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.