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."
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.
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?
I am Not an Animal!
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
There's video linked from the fine article. It looks a lot less dramatic than what the summary makes it sound to be. The road is not exactly a four lane interstate. It's single/double track and there's no traffic. The only vehicle you see is the animal rights group's parked van. Go see for yourselves.
Stefan Axelsson
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...
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.
Arm, it might be a little bit illegal to fly over private property if the sole purpose is to monitor said private property.
They should have waited until the drone was over their own property (as I am sure it eventually would have been). Then they could have shot it down legally.
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.
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.
...so they always fly over highways and thus cannot be shot at....
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
"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...
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
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.
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.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
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.
You mean the drone had a mind control ray fitted that made the people shoot their guns in that direction, holy shit!
"Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
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.
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.
#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.
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.
And yet, no charges were filed, nor even mentioned in the article. Also given that the aircraft was over the public highway at the time of the shooting, you couldn't even say that it violated airspace. So no. There wasn't a "breach of law" on the part of SHARK here.
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.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
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)
So would it be OK for me to take a couple of shots at an ultralight with an engine problem coming down for landing on the field behind my house to? No immediate plans, Just asking :-)
If my comment didn't sound as good in your head as it did in mine, then I guess we all know who's to blame
why couldn't a bullet hit one of the animal huggers?
Do you have any idea how bad hippie tastes?
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.
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.
If you fly your aircraft low enough to be in shotgun range, I'd say they would be acting in self-defense shooting your stupid ass down.
Great Intellect...
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.
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.
(unexciting) Youtube video of the shootdown can be found on the SHARK youtube channel.
Doesn't look like they were trespassing.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Animal Huggers are not in season yet, and you have to have a permit.
No one wants to really shoot one tho, they're hard to clean.
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
"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.
"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.
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!
If they would have attached a qu8k, bloody hunters would have been shooting at air. Moral of the story is never use a drone when a space satellite will do.
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?
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.
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.
Stay negative.
#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...
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 would not have had to occur at all despite the unwarranted aggressive response from the hunters."
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.
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"
I assume there are no civil flights, police helicopters, air ambulances, kites...
not anymore
Were they stomping around in the woods flushing out wild birds to shoot, or did someone bring in a truckload of specifically bred (or captured) birds for shooting? The former is called hunting. The latter has in many cases been replaced by shooting at clay pigeons.
Furthermore the former is the shooting of a nuisance animal that in many areas is overpopulated. The latter, on the contrary, often involves selective breeding of some of the worst of the species because they are more fun to shoot at.
The article doesn't really provide enough information to tell which way this "pigeon shoot" was intended to go. If everyone fled on small vehicles it would suggest the former more so than the latter, but that's only conjecture.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
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!
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.
...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.
The hunters were legally hunting on private property. The retard brought his drone to break the law by interfering with lawful hunting, then got his toy shot down:
http://idle.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2682739&cid=39108527
http://idle.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2682739&cid=39108897
I posted this to YouTube, trying not to be provocative, but the post vanished.
/* MAGIC THEATRE
ENTRANCE NOT FOR EVERYBODY
MADMEN ONLY */
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.
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.)
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
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.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
It's an article about two private groups fighting over the use of high tech surveillance drones, and it's perfectly appropriate. What do you come here for, dinner recipes and makeup tips? I think you're on the wrong website.
While I do not necessarily condone pigeon shooting (biodegradable clays are easier to clean up, you simply don't), legally harassing any form of hunting is illegal in all US states. Including South Carolina.
50-1-137. Impeding or obstructing hunting, trapping, fishing, or harvesting of marine species unlawful; penalty.
It is unlawful for a person willfully 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.
SECTION 50-1-130. General penalties. [SC ST SEC 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.
They could go to small claims or similar and try to extract his 300$ in damages, but at the same time, they can also be facing a 30 day jail sentence for harassment. If the hunters press charges.
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).
self defense? against a micro-light or even a hand-glider. Christ you yanks are paranoid.
These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
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.
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
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.
Watch the video, that "highway" was an empty dirt road.
He didn't say anything about whose fault it would be, he merely talked about differences of probabilities for different scenarios (whether fault was implied, I can't tell). I would hate to live in a place where the risk of rape went up markedly with the shortness of the dress, but if I did, I would be a fool not to recognise that. What is the correct response to recognising that, apart from doing what you can to change that? Should women dress more conservatively? I don't know, but considering it would not be a bad idea.
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.
Bullshit. Firstly, they like the taste of Pigeons, Moose, Deer, Pheasant, etc.; which have not been grown in battery farms and pumped with hormones. Secondly, they like being outdoors and catching their own food. Thirdly, it's good to know how to operate a firearm, who knows when the zombie apocalypse will start? Your fashionable, lefty, soundbites will get you laid, and probably with someone quite attractive; the problem is, you'll have to tolerate her as she changes into a man hating, dungaree wearing, embarassment by middle age. For good measure, she'll probably run off with the Yoga teacher, divorce you, and spend the rest of her life squeezing you for maintenance. All of the above does not apply to fox-hunting, which as practiced by the British, is a sick, sadistic, pointless way to kill an animal.
Are you kidding? You really think the law is not going to recognise the difference between a helicopter and a bullet? By your logic, anyone could shoot down any unmanned launch craft and it would be completely legal because it's just "a collision between two unmanned flying objects". Try going to a local park and shooting all the kids tennis balls etc. midflight and see how far that argument gets you.
First, the FAA has domain over a pilot's actions. There's a 600' minimum ceiling required. Some would question that as being too low, but that's the current rule. The theory is that buildings and obstructions would be noted, or beacons placed on top of them, noted on charts, etc.
A drone must follow the same rules. Privacy is another theory that has no established limits for the large part. Reasonable expectation of privacy has eroded to almost nothing, and the dignity of privacy has been methodically robbed.
If the drone went over the private property as seems to be implied, under the 600' ceiling, the drone owners warned, then IMHO, it's fair game, despite my negative opinion of pigeon hunting.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Lions have teeth and claws. Humans have brains and engineering.
That is how evolution worked for us. By your standards we would still be pre-stone age.
I saw the video a couple days ago and a few things jumped out at me as diverging from the reality they try to paint in the interview. First.. the thing landed right next to them.. was it really shot down or did they just land it? Second.. that road wasn't exactly a highway. It looked to be a two lane road through the wilderness... not one other car went by or was even seen for the whole duration of the video.
If they did in fact shoot it down... good for them... that was a small erratically moving target and they were out there for target practice after all.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. -HLM
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 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.
If they where pigeon hunting (which is a legal pastime in many areas) they where likely using a 12 gauge shotgun with #8 birdshot, which has an effective range (deadly) of about 50 yards, even with a very tight choke on the shotgun might get a range of MAYBE 100 yards. I'm suspecting the "drone" was damaged and didn't just fall from the sky, but had a controlled landing. Might have been a few people around with handguns, but that's a pretty impressive shot beyond 50 yards. Either way, I don't really have a problem with them shooting it down, they where invading their privacy while doing something completely legal.
I don't know what the laws are in South Carolina but I bet they activists could be brought up on other charges as well. I would assume that SC has a similar law to Minnesota where it is illegal to interfere with the legal taking of game(p. 23 second paragraph from the bottom).
Time to offend someone
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).
And thus the Taleban is born.
What you are saying is that women should not have normal civil liberties. Who else will you deny them to, and what makes you believe your own liberties will remain safe if you allow this sort of disgraceful attitude to spread?
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Having spent the weekend having an impromptu Mythbusters marathon, I've learned that once bullets start to tumble their terminal velocity is between 60 and 100 mph which will really really hurt if it hit you on the head but is not going to penetrate and kill you. However, if it keeps on its ballistic trajectory (i.e. not straight up) they can kill at quite a distance just like the poster said. These are not mutually exclusive positions. At the most it means you can't kill yourself by shooting up in the air.
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.
Reminds me of when I was little (about 5 or so) and for some reason thought it would be a good idea to pull the family dog's tail while it was eating. The dog gave me a little nip and barked quite loud, I ended up with a scratch and went crying to my dad about how the dog bit me. My dad's response was don't pull the dogs tail.
Time to offend someone
(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.
You're going to get your license pulled if you take it below 1000 feet without cause though. Wanting to take pictures is normally not cause. If you are a TV news crew it might be, but not otherwise.
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.
I was referring to the kind of license this webpage talks about: http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/permits/gun_licensing_faq.shtml#CanITargetShootOutsideNYC
In NYC you need a permit to buy, own, and carry a gun. Of course other laws may be in force where the incident happened.
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.
Look, all he was talking about was the drunken, potentially lower-class, most-likely-wife-beating louts at this event, is all! I'm certain that after they're done with their busy day of raping schoolchildren in the alley, stealing booze from cityfolk tourists at gunpoint, and urinating on the corpses of the people they "accidentally" shot with their murder devices, they're perfectly upstanding citizens! You should stop reading too much into this so-called "bias"!
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.
We'll have to disagree.
The hunters, operating legally, were goaded. Trespassing can be a 3-dimensional endeavor. If an aircraft goes under 600' over my house, the FAA is getting a complaint-- they already do where I live, as people like to fly over a nudist camp not far from where I live. We get the tail # and call it in.
The people operating the RC helicopter aren't peace officers. They don't have a warrant, or suspicion of a crime in progress. I'm not a hunter and am not a fan of hunting in general, but I am a fan of privacy.
Should some idiot's RC helicopter have free reign over the private property of another? No. Shooting it down? A little over the top, but this is the one place where I think the Castle Doctrine has a place. The RC copter is a proxy agent of a human. Warn a human to stop and it's up to the human to do so or take the consequences; and yes, the consequences could be legal or illegal and possibly gruesome. Hunters, by their nature, are likely to use gruesome consequences, and to expect them to genuflect is certainly out of the realm of possibilities.
The outcomes in this case are that the RC copter was shot, other actions on the part of the operator of the RC copter (hovering over the highway, etc) aside.
The threat to the hunters was invasion of privacy. It's a real and present threat. Did each side over react? I find it incredulous that I'm siding with the hunters, but there it is: weighed regarding two sets of behaviors, I have to side with the injured party, and in this case, that's the group of hunters.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
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.
I find it ridiculous, the idea that a sex-related crime rarely has to do with the sex.
stupid victim behavior doesn't entirely excuse a perpetrator, but the behavior is still stupid.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
The actual unstated major assumption here is that the RC helicopter actually was fired at. We have nothing more than the claim of a spokesman for these "activists."
Where's video of damage consistent with birdshot on the RC helicopter?
I note that their supporters seem to have a major knowledge deficit regarding firearms; notice the inability to distinguish between rifles and shotguns, and between birdshot and bullets.
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.
"Castle Doctrine" means that you can respond with deadly force when you're in reasonable expectation of imminent bodily harm to you or someone around you, even if you have an opportunity to run away - i.e. there's no "duty to retreat". It doesn't mean that you can shoot anyone committing some petty crime on your property, most certainly not mere trespass.
The specifics vary by state - e.g. in mine (WA): "No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime" - note that this includes burglary, which does not technically require a threat of violence towards occupants. Still, it's not simply trespass, as burglary requires breaking and entering with "criminal intent".
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.
Check your premises.
So, does that mean I can smash up your stuff on say, a public beach?
If I smash up your stuff purely as a malicious act to hurt you, then it's a criminal destruction of your property. And I would be liable for the damages.
If your stuff is performing unauthorized filming of my private property, after I told you that you can't do it, for example, or your equipment is clearly present there to do something illegal that harms me or my property, and I can disable your equipment without hurting any person, then it won't be a crime for me to smash up the equipment, to the extent necessary, with the level of force required to stop or prevent your attack on my property.
Now, despite not being criminal -- I might still be liable for damage I do to your property, or collateral damage to other people's property, if there is any, that results from my use of force.
But that's a matter to be handled by the courts, and will depend on the facts surrounding the circumstances. For example, if you had been warned by law enforcement and the property owner already, not to place your stuff adjacent to my property, then chances are good you will be found liable to the damages to your equipment I smashed up.
This is completely wrong.
However you'd certainly be ostracized by polite society, crossed off her Germanic Majesty's Christmas card list and neither you nor any of your close family would be welcome within 100 miles of Ascot, Henley or Badders ever again. Yea, to the son of the son of the son.
I'm a Q bloody C, and I should know that the Visitor Tea Act (1776, amended 1940 and 1947) was repealed ages ago. Under Blair, I think. But only because the Belgians said it was racist against the environment or some similar commie shit.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Ah, I was going by the video attached to the story, which doesn't show the last half. However, it's even more damning than showing no evidence at all.
First, the guy in the animal rights group claimed it was small caliber fire. You don't have to know firearms to hear a difference in sound between a small caliber firearm being discharged and any sort of shotgun being discharged. If you're going to make a claim as to caliber, you're already claiming knowledge enough to believe you can make the distinction.
If it was a rifled bullet that was fired it would have required two shots to damage both sides of the single rotor. The odds of someone hitting a moving aerial target so precisely to hit both sides of a single spinning blade are so astronomically high as to make that claim laughable.
It would be easier to hit both sides with birdshot, but there are problems with that. If the pellet grouping was tight enough to hit that single rotor twice, it is almost certain that it would've hit more than that. At the distances implied, you'd be looking at a pattern somewhere around 50" across, so the person shooting would have to be practically blind to be off-target so far that the edge of the pattern barely clipped the helicopter. Additionally, none of this takes into account the effect of firing through the canopy of the forest, which, while it may seem contrary to common sense, actually makes this even more improbable that no more than two pellets hit the craft.
The SHARK spokesman is either dishonest or just outrageously ignorant. The other options are just far to unlikely to be taken seriously without other evidence.