Phillyburb hunters shoots down activist spy drone

page: 11
22
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
It doesn't matter what they expect. They were seen from public and that's that.




posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
These are the same people who go to fishing tournaments and disrupt them to save the fish. Pretty silly.



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Have they tried shooting fish in a barrel?

It seems really challenging.



Oh and people actually do it.





At least the tunas were to be eaten.

Doubt these guys are eating their pigeons



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by davjan4
It doesn't matter if they were over public property or not. What they are doing is stalking. If someone spys on you from public property with a telescope with a camera attached taking pictures of your wife in your backyard, is the fact that they are on public property make it right or legal? No.


Actually if you can see it from public you can film it. That's how it is in the US. Dont come here making stuff up



Actually, this show an incomplete understanding of US law. Let me give you an example.

According to what you say, if you could record into my back yard from the road (a public space) it should be legal for you to do so. And that is true, in a very limited capacity. If you were just going by and wanted to get a single picture of the yard or something, that is one thing. However, if you continually came back, and stood in the street taking pictures of my yard (especially if you knew your presence was unwelcome) you could possibly be arrested for harassment. Harassment most certainly is illegal in this country.



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Under the United States Code Title 18 Subsection 1514(c)1. Harassment is defined as "a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such a person and serves no legitimate purpose".


Embhasis mine. I know stalking and harrasment are illegal.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
It doesn't matter what they expect. They were seen from public and that's that.


Dude, no they weren't... What are you talking about? You have no idea what this is about evidentally..

They were not visible from a public space. That's the whole reason SHARK sent a drone up! Duh!



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Yes and air space is public space. I'm repeating myself. There's a very good reason why they are not shut down by police who would love nothing but an excuse to do so.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Wtf? Why the lies? It wasn't in private property. It was in public road. When you are in public you have every right to film anything you (or your drone) see.

[edit to add] Btw, your video convieniently cuts the part where the drone is shot out so it can talk about how the evil people were invading private property. Bunch of idiots.


Wow...Do you understand the concept of a HUNTING CLUB?... Clubs ARE PRIVATE PROPERTY where people pay fees to become members, and do certain activities, in this case a HUNTING PIGEON CLUB...

The shooting occurred over the HUNTING CLUB, hence it occurred over private property...

Its hilarious how you try to insult people when you can't even understand a simple concept such as a "HUNTING PIGEON CLUB" being private property...



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   
It's hilarious how you don't even know something so simple as no expectation of privacy. I'm repeating myself here. Try again?



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
It seems that PA does have an invasion of privacy law but, it only seems to cover when the images created are used for sexual gratification.


2010 Pennsylvania Code
Title 18 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
Chapter 75 - Other Offenses
7507.1 - Invasion of privacy.


§ 7507.1. Invasion of privacy.
(a) Offense defined.--Except as set forth in subsection (d),
a person commits the offense of invasion of privacy if he, for
the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any
person, knowingly does any of the following:
(1) Views, photographs, videotapes, electronically
depicts, films or otherwise records another person without
that person's knowledge and consent while that person is in a
state of full or partial nudity and is in a place where that
person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
(2) Photographs, videotapes, electronically depicts,
films or otherwise records or personally views the intimate
parts, whether or not covered by clothing, of another person
without that person's knowledge and consent and which
intimate parts that person does not intend to be visible by
normal public observation.
(3) Transfers or transmits an image obtained in
violation of paragraph (1) or (2) by live or recorded
telephone message, electronic mail or the Internet or by any
other transfer of the medium on which the image is stored.

Justia


It seems strange to me that the law only recognizes a person's right to privacy against another person when that person is engaged in some type of sexual or sexually explicit activity. It just seems wrong somehow that people are allowed to spy on each other as much as they like, so long as nobody is getting sexual gratification out of it.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 

It seems to me that section (2) could be used in this case.

It is difficult thing to videotape a person without getting their private parts, even though covered by clothing (key here) caught on tape.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Full nude pigeon shoots
As if they'd need any more ridicule.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


No need to be nude, apparently.

It says 'whether or not covered by clothing'.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


No need to be nude, apparently.

It says 'whether or not covered by clothing'.



The key part of the whole law is the "sexual gratification" clause. You would have to prove that in order for this law to apply. Judging from some of the vids he's posted online, it would be easier to prove he gets his "satisfaction" from videotaping the cops supposedly oppressing him than he does from filming the actual shoots.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


No need to be nude, apparently.

It says 'whether or not covered by clothing'.



The key part of the whole law is the "sexual gratification" clause. You would have to prove that in order for this law to apply. Judging from some of the vids he's posted online, it would be easier to prove he gets his "satisfaction" from videotaping the cops supposedly oppressing him than he does from filming the actual shoots.
So if a person is caught videotaping, let's say women in a public restroom, if the authorities don't catch the perp getting sexual gratification from the video, they have no case? Sounds like a poorly written law.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by foodstamp
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.
edit on 11/24/1212 by foodstamp because: (no reason given)


I understand that intention is an aspect of many laws, but intention can be hard to prove. Someone could just be flying a drone around and videoing everything it flies over, AND it might just happen to be flying over a particular place, i.e. in this case a hunting club. It seems the same group (SHARK?) or any other in a similar circumstance could cover it's butt by just flying and videoing in a few other places as well. So I have yet to see how these pigeon-protecting droners can be arrested for anything unless it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they are filming the shooting of pigeons for sexual gratification.

Again, I am not tryingto split hairs or be a smart alleck; I am just looking at what the possibly pertinent laws are. As is, I don't see the droners as having broken any laws, whereas the shooters did destroy private property that was in a public space, i.e. public airspace. I'm not even saying that I necessarily agree that this seems just, but I don't see any other legal interpretation of the matter. If it were legal to shoot down drones over one's property, why not be able to shoot down helicopters, planes and satellites (if you got the right missiles or lasers, of course, for the latter) that are directly over one's property? After all, with "castle" laws and such, one can argue that they are only protecting themselves on their property. Of course, typically one gets in a lot of trouble with the law if one shoots a cop on one's property, so I don't recommend anyone shooting down a police helicopter over one's property...



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   
I've said it before and I'll say it again: There's a good reason why Shark is not being investigated for this. The police have tried to shut them down before and if they could in any way use the drone idea against them they would.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   


I understand that intention is an aspect of many laws, but intention can be hard to prove. Someone could just be flying a drone around and videoing everything it flies over, AND it might just happen to be flying over a particular place, i.e. in this case a hunting club. It seems the same group (SHARK?) or any other in a similar circumstance could cover it's butt by just flying and videoing in a few other places as well.


I agree, however, int eh one instacne. SHARK clearly stated their intentions on the video. That they couldn't get a close shot as to what was going on and that it was their intention to not only find out, but to 'intimidate' the pigeon shooters. This is their own admission on the video.



So I have yet to see how these pigeon-protecting droners can be arrested for anything unless it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they are filming the shooting of pigeons for sexual gratification.


I also agree with this statement. But I don't think i ever defended the idea that SHARK would be arrested. My argument was that if SHARK would try to sue for damages, that they would probably have it thrown out of court because they were violating the pigeon shooters constitutional rights to privacy. And again, THAT's where th debate lies. Not weither or not SHARK would be arrested for a criminal violation.



Again, I am not trying to split hairs or be a smart alleck; I am just looking at what the possibly pertinent laws are. As is, I don't see the droners as having broken any laws, whereas the shooters did destroy private property that was in a public space, i.e. public airspace.


I think the closest example would be the hanging tree limb example. If you had tree limbs hanging over my property I could by law (in most states) cut down those limbs and not be held liable for whatever damages you assess their to be. Does that mean that If I called the cops that you could be charged with littering or maybe tresspass? Or obstruction of private property? No. BUT, being that your hanging tree limbs are in violation of the city code, then I have a legal right to cut them down, quite frankly, at YOUR exspense.

That's the closest example I can find. And I believe it pertains to the SHARK incident in question. SHARK is violating the privacy of others. THEREFORE, the pigeon shooters are NOT liable for any damages caused by themselves when they choose to "remedy" the problem with a couple gunshots. After all. With a drone 200ft in the air over your property with the intent to spy and intimidate, shooting it out of the sky doesn't sound to unresonable.

I suppose the pigeon shooters coiuld sue for monetary damages and argue that their privacy was invaded. However, I find this unlikely. Hopefully both sides will just call it a 'wash'.
edit on 12/4/1212 by foodstamp because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Its not really accurate to call the area a Phillyburb. The Philly burbs extend to about the King Of Prussia area, maybe as far as Limerick near Pottstown.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by iwilliam

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by davjan4
It doesn't matter if they were over public property or not. What they are doing is stalking. If someone spys on you from public property with a telescope with a camera attached taking pictures of your wife in your backyard, is the fact that they are on public property make it right or legal? No.


Actually if you can see it from public you can film it. That's how it is in the US. Dont come here making stuff up



Actually, this show an incomplete understanding of US law. Let me give you an example.

According to what you say, if you could record into my back yard from the road (a public space) it should be legal for you to do so. And that is true, in a very limited capacity. If you were just going by and wanted to get a single picture of the yard or something, that is one thing. However, if you continually came back, and stood in the street taking pictures of my yard (especially if you knew your presence was unwelcome) you could possibly be arrested for harassment. Harassment most certainly is illegal in this country.


Yes, I agree, and intention is also a factor.

Take youer same scenario. And I, (picture taker) have come to your back yard to take a pic on the third day now and I happen to see your wife undressing in the _ So I continue to come by everyday since for devious 'intentions' then it's now a criminal act.

You're right bud... He's misinterpreting the law. Or not thinking it through all the way.... Most likely...





new topics
top topics
 
22
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join