Phillyburb hunters shoots down activist spy drone

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

So the illegal practice these men are taking part in isn't as equally if not more immoral then the actions of the people spying? Is that what your really saying? Let these people kill what ever they want on their property... IT'S PRIVATE!

Ever spray insecticide on ants on your own property? How about a wasps nest under your eve? Ever kill a black widow spider, snake or other creepy crawler like a centipede?

You see you logic is flawed. You want it to be ok for you to kill wasps and ants on your own property but it is not ok for others to kill pigeons on their own property.

Remember every time you point you always have three fingers pointing back at you. clean you own slate before you try to wipe someones elses.

Should have known better than to fly the drone out there, everyone knows Han shoots first.

reply to post by ChesterJohn

Ever spray insecticide on ants on your own property? How about a wasps nest under your eve? Ever kill a black widow spider, snake or other creepy crawler like a centipede? You see you logic is flawed. You want it to be ok for you to kill wasps and ants on your own property but it is not ok for others to kill pigeons on their own property.

It seems silly, but PETA wants to outlaw pesticides and mouse/rat traps that kill.

No really.

And people donate money to them.

reply to post by ChesterJohn


No it isn't those aren't illegal practices, now if you said did you ever euthanize your dog, that might be a better example. Just answer the question, is what these men are doing illegal?

reply to post by thoiter


You might as well put these pigeons on miniatry electric chairs and charge money for people to flip the switch. Same thing.

reply to post by marg6043


Shark despite the striking name are not authorities. There are other cases where drone use by authorities has been ruled legal.

reply to post by ChesterJohn


Yes, cause people hoard the snakes, spiders and whatnot so they can have the pleasure of killing them. Talk about flawed logic.

reply to post by phroziac


I'm talking about setting up a zone around where these events take place. You won't see an RC plane flying around where there's a shoot going on, because the RC pilot doesn't want to risk his plane, that he worked weeks or months or longer on building, get damaged. The only state that this event is legal is Pennsylvania, so you set up a handful of places where it will take place, and set it up so that you can't overfly it with an RC plane equipped with a camera.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by foodstamp

 

I'm well aware of the truth. These birds are not captured from the wild for the good of man. They are farm raised to be shot and killed!

You know some pigeon-ranchers that sell pigeons to pigeon shoots, do you?

I do know a couple of people that trap wild pigeons, selling them exclusively to pigeon shoots. They do it on demand, the people holding the shoots let them know a couple of weeks in advance of the shoot.

Funny thing, other posters are justifying the killing of others species for food because they are farm-raised, you are taking an opposite tack.

edit on 22-11-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

Well, that's great that you know a few people that trap pigeons. But I highly doubt telling you that they do farm raise them too and proving it too you by giving you a list of contacts of farmers and articles in support of this claim is going to change your mind. However, If your willing to stand corrected, I'm willing to do the research.

It's up to you..

how long before the reports of the u.s. drones
getting the same treatment?

in this case i think shark should keep their nose out.

not saying what i would have done, but i've never tryed
bbq'ed drone before...


as for the birds, they are a rat with wings.. i say good
target practice. kind of like the gophers around here.
Shoot some ranchers will pay you a quarter per tail.
Now if you use a .22 you can get 500 rounds for about $20 bucks,
thats a good return on your money.
and you help control the gopher population, much like the pigeon population.

reply to post by foodstamp


I would pull it up for you, but I am on my phone. Go on PigeonShoots.com, it is part of SHARKS. They explain there how the pigeons are captured weeks beforehand for the shoots. The site is totally anti-shoot, so think what you may. I am just going on my personal knowledge.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by foodstamp

 

I would pull it up for you, but I am on my phone. Go on PigeonShoots.com, it is part of SHARKS. They explain there how the pigeons are captured weeks beforehand for the shoots. The site is totally anti-shoot, so think what you may. I am just going on my personal knowledge.

Yeah I have seen what your talking about. I don't know for sure if SHARKS is refering to a certain pigeon shoot when mentioning that or not. Because if you Google something like, say, "farm raised pigeons for shoot(ing)" You will find MANY different articles and videos by SHARK also refering to certain other shoots where the pigeons are specificly raised for shooting also. I don't know where they get their information however it is worth the reply that they mention many other shoots where they were raised.

I don't think your necessarily defending that ALL pigeon shoots are trapped pigeons. But I do believe it's safe to say that many pigeons are also farm raised just for this activity too.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by ChesterJohn

 

No it isn't those aren't illegal practices, now if you said did you ever euthanize your dog, that might be a better example. Just answer the question, is what these men are doing illegal?

edit on 22-11-2012 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)

These men specifically? No. However it is worth mentioning that PA is the ONLY state where it is legal. It's un ethical. Most people would agree with that statement. And given the right amount of time, I'm sure it will become illegal in PA too.

I can understand in the 17 or 1800's this going on. You have an invasive species that needs to be destroyed. And what better way then to trap them and blow them out of the sky. I can understand the logic behind it. Hell, when you think about it, back then, it may have even seemed merciful. After all, you were giving the trapped bird a "chance" to escape free. Times were much more brutal and life was harder then. What seems acceptable then is NOT acceptable in a more evolved society. I support this statement by the overwhelming support in state a local governments to ban this practice.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by ChesterJohn

 

Ever spray insecticide on ants on your own property? How about a wasps nest under your eve? Ever kill a black widow spider, snake or other creepy crawler like a centipede? You see you logic is flawed. You want it to be ok for you to kill wasps and ants on your own property but it is not ok for others to kill pigeons on their own property.

It seems silly, but PETA wants to outlaw pesticides and mouse/rat traps that kill.

No really.

And people donate money to them.

It's so funny that they want to end ALL killing of animals and they themselves are responsibile for around 5,000 euthanizations per year of domestic pets that they can't adopt out. What a joke.

reply to post by foodstamp


I agree that pigeon shoots should be viewed as unethical today. They are a holdover from the early 1900's when there was even an industry dedicated to raising pigeons as targets. There is even a brand of clay pigeons (Blue Rock) named after a trade name of live pigeons that were marketed back then.

The way that worked to end the Hegins shoot was to buy out the shoot. The animal rights organization pays a sum of money to offset the money that would be raised by the shoot to support the community park that was the benefactor.

Good point regarding PETA. Maybe PETA should stop worrying about saving rats and termites and focus on the animals they euthanize. I'm guessing that they spend a lot of money on celebrity photo shoots for their campaigns that could be spent to support shelters.

reply to post by foodstamp


Thanks that makes a whole lot of sense and clearly still chester john is a bit... warped. Unethical seems about right, but people that do this seem extremely off to me anyway, sociopathic could be a way to describe this as well.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

Here is the actual US laws, so you can check it out.

US airspace regulations

Also each state has so called ' Peeping Tom ' statutes, so you need to look those up too.
They are pretty explicit about what is prohibited in relation to spying on your neighbors property.

edit on 22-11-2012 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)

Thank you for the link; however, some of the terminology is VERY vague, such as "navigable airspace". I found this definition:

above a prescribed minimum altitude of flight. The following is an example of a federal statute defining navigable airspace.

According to 49 USCS § 40102 (32), ‘navigable airspace’ means “airspace above the minimum altitudes of flight prescribed by regulations under this subpart and subpart III of this part [49 USCS §§ 40101 et seq., 44101 et seq.], including airspace needed to ensure safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft.”

Well, first off, does this apply to balloons -- say balloons too small to carry human passengers -- kites and small radio-controlled planes? I'm not trying to be a smart aleck; I genuine do wonder. As airspace is about safety, if one has a small balloon that would not harm anybody or anything if it fell out of the air, so it falls under no safety guidelines, would this be regulated? Can a person fly a kite over someone else's private property?

As far as peeping tom laws, what about police helicopters flying over one's house and looking down on persons in their private property? Don't they need a search warrant, yet clearly cops aren't getting search warrants to fly over every property in town, so evidently this is not considered protected from viewing. So why can't a private individual do the same thing? In fact, privately owned helicopters can fly over private property and peep on it as well. So what's wrong with someone flying a drone, or small remote-controlled airplaone over someone's property? I really fail to see the differences. And, again, if the US government has spy satellites that can see just about anything, don't they also then need search warrants to fly over and view private property in th US?

I imagine a lot of these issues remain unsettled law, and that's why I question what these pigeon protectors were doing was illegal. And if it is illegal, then I would imagine charges will be pressed, but nothing was said about the ensuing legal scuttlebutt of this case, as I remember, in the article cited.

To be clear, I'm not saying that what was done was legal, but I am not confident it was illegal either, so claiming this was clearly illegal and should be punished criminally seems to be an overreach.

If the drone is over your property, then expect it to be shot down. If it cost them $4,000 then they should consider it an expensive learning experience of not invading other people's property, and buying cost effective electronics.

You wouldn't happen to be just making stuff up on the internets? You perhaps should read the whole thread and article

post by MrInquisitive[/url]

As far as peeping tom laws, what about police helicopters flying over one's house and looking down on persons in their private property? Don't they need a search warrant, yet clearly cops aren't getting search warrants to fly over every property in town, so evidently this is not considered protected from viewing. So why can't a private individual do the same thing? In fact, privately owned helicopters can fly over private property and peep on it as well. So what's wrong with someone flying a drone, or small remote-controlled airplaone over someone's property? I really fail to see the differences. And, again, if the US government has spy satellites that can see just about anything, don't they also then need search warrants to fly over and view private property in th US?

You mentioned you fail to see the differences but I woulde have to differ. I think you've done quite well in understanding the various aspects. I think the only piece you MAY not considered yet is that these "drones" were being used with the sole intent to monitor and video surveil someone on their own private property i a wooded area where there's reasonable expectation of privacy. That's nothing like flying over in your helicopter and happening to look down and see Sally sunbathing naked. Not too mention, the same video's were being recorded with the intent to defame those that would be caught on camera. Intention (As I'm sure you already know) plays a HUGE role in civil and criminal law.

How does showing the truth as it is make it defamed? If anything the pigeon shooters defame themselves. And btw you have no reasonable expectation of privacy if you can be seen from public space. How many times do we have to repeat this? That is exactly the reason why shark has never been investigated or accused by police even thought they bend over backwards for the shooters to try to shut them down.

reply to post by PsykoOps

. And btw you have no reasonable expectation of privacy if you can be seen from public space.

That fact that the group needed an RC helicopter with a camera to see the event is proof in itself that the shooters expected that they had privacy.