Phillyburb hunters shoots down activist spy drone

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Ya just can't fix stupid now can ya!! They wouldn't have gotten their little whirly bird back over my property. I'd have it hanging like a stuffed pigeon. I bet the cops are still laughing about it.




posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


No need to draw diagrams. Here's a video. Tells all you need to know about these people.



I wouldn't mind if they'd just shoot each other.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Wait a minute... this is a new shooting? That YT video was from february and used footage from this incident I'm talking about.
I'm confuzzled.


The one I posted in the OP and the one you posted are from incidents that happened earlier this year. As far as I know, there is no video up yet on this current incident.

I think it is very telling that they named the drone "old suicide". Obviously, they know what's going to happen to it when they try to film the shoots.

I don't know why they bother; they seem to have plenty of footage of pigeon shoots in their files and from the altitude they have to send that thing to see anything, they won't be able to get any good footage, unless they do send it over the private property to get a better look.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Ok so they YT video on the original post had old footage of a different incident. Considering this is not the first time or the second time I think the name is appropriate
They bother cause they want to make a difference? They want to bring to public attention what happens there? Also they've gotten quite good footage in the past. As shown on their channel. There is no need to fly over private property.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
I have to bring this over from the previous thread. If anyone has more accurate info on the specific laws and statues please contribute. As far as I know this is the only "expert" opinion so far. So flying over private property is ok because the airspace is not in possession of the owner.


Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


So long as the air craft / drone doesn't fly into controlled airspace they are fine. I'm not sure how big the drone is so it might be required to maintain a minimum base altitude.. Aside from that they cant pretty much do what ever they want so long as the item doesn't put anyone in danger.

Our ATC system is goofy.. Its an upside down pyramid. The farther from controlled tower at lower altitudes the less control, while higher altitudes are slotted into flight corridors and tracked / controlled by the airspace control towers (whatever they are called).

The info above is based on a few incidents ive seen. If someone with more info knows speak up.
edit on 20/11/2012 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Yeah, never mind freedom and the dumbest comment yet here.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
I wouldn't mind if they'd just shoot each other.


They are not breaking any laws yet are harassed by moronic people that cry when they get a reaction from those they are harassing.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
They are not breaking any laws yet are shot by moronic people that cry when they get documented from those they are hiding from.
There



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Airspace over private property isn't restricted, or owned by the land owner, but the description isn't quite right. Lower altitudes are less controlled, because that's where the VFR flights are occurring. There is control at low altitudes, but only if the pilot is on an IFR flight plan. VFR basically states you have to stay a set distance from any clouds, and you are responsible for traffic/ground separation. But if I were to file an IFR flight plan, I would be followed the entire flight, even if I stayed at low altitude.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Ok, I'm not an expert on airspace laws in US. I do know the privacy laws ok so in the end I see nothing these shark people are doing as being illegal.
If anyone feels otherwise feel free to quote a law and educate me



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


no law needed. If my privacy is invaded by an RC toy, and I happen to have a gun, all I can say is I hope you don't have too much invested in your toy. And after you are standing over the smoldering remains, please try to remember the gun. It's for protection. If somebody get's shot, then arguing over who is right or wrong doesn't really matter much to the dead guy. Don't be that guy.
edit on 20-11-2012 by network dude because: bad spler



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
No law needed? Seriously? So you dont mind if you get shot randomly by someone. Cause you know they can do that since no law is needed. Brilliant. How bout they send storm troopers to take your guns? No law needed right? Same thing. You can do the whole "from my cold dead hands" routine. After all:



If somebody get's shot, then arguing over who is right or wrong doesn't really matter much to the dead guy. Don't be that guy.





posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Poeple with your mindset are the root of these issues. A guy shooting his weapon on his land, breaking no laws gets interrupted by some dumbass who wants to make some sort of a political statement. Since the dumbass is exactly that, he escalates the issue, and inevitably, somebody gets shot and killed. A completely senseless loss of life just occurred and for what? Principal? Tell the kids on either side why they get to grow up without a daddy for "principals".

DON"T BE THAT GUY!



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Well talk about mindsets. Retards with guns think they have a right to shoot other peoples property, who btw were not braking any laws. So the act of owning a gun gives you the right to shoot anything to your hearts content... Yeah right.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Wow. I didn't know they make people who think like you.

OK, Picture this, you are in your back yard, pushing your 5 year old daughter on the swing. I set up a cool little RC chopper with a camera and fly it 15 feet over your head. Does it piss you off? if I kept doing it, would you do something about it?
edit on 20-11-2012 by network dude because: bad spler



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
I'd call the police. Cause it's illegal. In a civilized country



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


well, here in the wild wild west, we still have the right to have guns. And since we are all retards, we are liable to shoot at anything that moves. best to say away, or you might end up on the wrong end of the thunderstick.

Gotta go wipe the drool off and kill me some dinner.
edit on 20-11-2012 by network dude because: some peopel's children.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Not all gun owners are retards, those who recklessly shoot them and damage other peoples property are. Or who enjoy torturing pigeons for their amusement. Like serial killers who torture animals before the move up the chain to humans.
Have fun hunting and remember responsible gun safety. Wear your vest and keep that finger off the trigger untill you are ready to kill



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 



NBC10 also spoke with the Berks County's District Attorney. He told us the pigeon shoots are legal and that he also wants to find a way to put a stop to what he considers a "potentially deadly cat and mouse game" between SHARK and Wing Pointe.


This is what I am talking about. If someone ends up dead, nobody wins. And for what?

This group should be civilized like you. They should go to capital hill and try to enact a law saving the pigeons.

Edit to add: Recklessly shooting? One shot, one kill. Sounds quite on target to me.
edit on 20-11-2012 by network dude because: added thought



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Well considering that the only ones doing the shooting are these so called "sportsmen" which I refer to as retads if someone ends up dead it's 100% their fault. And yes it is recklessly shooting when they are aiming at something they have 0 right to shoot at.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


well, here in the wild wild west, we still have the right to have guns. And since we are all retards, we are liable to shoot at anything that moves. best to say away, or you might end up on the wrong end of the thunderstick.

Gotta go wipe the drool off and kill me some dinner.
edit on 20-11-2012 by network dude because: some peopel's children.


Yep.
Still laughing over this.





new topics
top topics
 
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join