Phillyburb hunters shoots down activist spy drone

page: 7
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel


Its actually illegal to invade property and spy like this.
Not to mention, totally immoral and unjustified.


As a bird lover I am saddened by people raising birds to shoot for fun. Can I raise dogs or cats to shoot for fun?

I suppose it does help prevent people from killing too many wild birds. At one time there was a bird known as the Passenger pigeon. Hunted to extinction.
edit on 11/20/2012 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)
Ask President Obama about that, he admits to eating dog.

He ate man's best friend! Ate him!




posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 

You Finns have a lot of nerve, telling us that we can't shoot pigeons here. You people eat reindeer!

That is the propulsion unit for Santa's mode of transportation.

You're going to tell us that we can't kill some introduced pest from Europe?

BTW, do you know the effective range of a 12 gauge shotgun firing bird shot?

Using dove loads(#8 shot) it is about 30 yards.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by borracho
 


Then set the altitude where planes are normally flying, so that they have to go to the FAA to get permission to fly in that area, or have to have a transponder installed. That means no small UAVs will be there, because something like this can't carry a transponder.


I don't know why you would say such a thing. Microair, an Australian avionics company, makes a full-featured mode 3A/C 4096 code capable transponder that weighs less than a pound and a half and has a very low power draw. A Predator drone has a total payload capacity of 750 pounds. Even a small drone could easily handle a 21 ounce xponder.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Originally posted by macman


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


It seems from the video that PsykoOps posted on page 2 at least suggests that they do.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by F4guy
 


Yeah, but the size of this thing, it would be very hard pressed to carry both the camera, AND a transponder, even if it's a very small one. This is an RC kit at best.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


The difference being is that the reindeer have good lives before being humanely killed and the pigeos have short miserable caged lives and are not eaten afterwards.
Such a waste of an animal.
I hunt but only kill what I am going to eat and have shot, killed and eaten wild pigeons when I lived in the country-side before.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 




Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by macman
 


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





Thank you for posting this video.
I think if it wasn't for seeing this video I would not really have been bothered about pigeon shooting.

The absolute waste of good pigeon meat is wrong, such a waste of a living creature.

The fact that they have poor captive lives and then get shot down in their hundreds if not thousands is wrong.

But to see grown men and teenagers walking through a field of half-dead birds and kicking them around for fun is abhorrent,

I myself have hunted wild pigeons, rabbits and muntjacks but I only kill what I eat as I don't take the killing of a living creature lightly.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
lmao.... thats hilarious... could be the start of an entire new sport - drone dropping .... could hold organised events similar to skeet shooting... erm.. back to topic ... think its rather idiotic that airspace over private property is not considered as part of that property over there..... guess that would mess up big brothers and busybody activists plans to harass everyone else.....



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by b14warrior
reply to post by butcherguy
 


The difference being is that the reindeer have good lives before being humanely killed and the pigeos have short miserable caged lives and are not eaten afterwards.
Such a waste of an animal.
I hunt but only kill what I am going to eat and have shot, killed and eaten wild pigeons when I lived in the country-side before.
PETA would argue the reindeer point with you. If you asked the reindeer, and they had the ability to answer, they might argue the point too.

Most of the pests (pigeons) are trapped, versus being poisoned, which is the method that many cities use to kill
the vermin. The pigeons are not raised in cages for the shoots. They are wild birds that are trapped in various ways. One method uses nets launched over a feeding flock, sometimes with model rockets.

Oh, BTW, if eating them really matters to you, most of the pigeon shoots dress the birds and cook them. The famous shoot at Hegins, PA made pot pie out of them.
edit on 20-11-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Just thought I would ask..

Have any of the members been to a live turkey shoot?

The way people get stirred up about shooting a small bird that can fly, I should hate to think what you would think about a turkey shoot.

But it's okay to eat one if you get it from a supermarket or from a Hungry Man frozen dinner?



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by FortAnthem
 




I had to go to the previous thread about this to fetch this. They were over the road.


So if I launch from a public road and fly up 100' and video tape you in your backyard, pool, inside a nudist camp or maybe kids playing in a pool in their bathing suits for perving reasons it's ok?

It's an invasion of privacy no matter where they launch from or fly the toy if their spying on people on private property. Just because you don't agree with what their doing doesn't make it right.

What they were doing is LEGAL and being done on their ow property.......end of story.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 08:12 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


"You do not need permission from someone to take their picture if they are in public view. However if they in an area where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, you are not allowed to invade that privacy by photographing them. So for example you can't use a telephoto lens to peer into someone's bedroom. Neither can you photograph someone in a private changing room or a public restroom even if, for some reason, you can see into it. There's a reasonable expectation of privacy in such areas and if you take a photograph and the subject files a complaint with the police, you may be arrested for charges related to invasion of privacy. A good primer on photography and privacy issues can be found at www.rcfp.org... The article covers privacy laws of all 50 states."

The guys with the drones we're trying very hard to SPY on people who otherwise could not be seen. That's why they needed the "drone". They could not be seen (without trespassing) without one. Those hunters, or whatever you want to call them, right or wrong, had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

I'll probably see my brother this week. He's a lawyer. I'll confirm this with him.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Alright, this is lame vs lamer and I'm not sure who gets which spot.
What sport is it to shoot pigeons released from cages?
They're slow and not very hard to hit.
Maybe it's a confidence builder for people who can't shoot.

They should shoot clay pigeons if they're not going to eat them anyway.

As for SHARK....get a life maybe?
Go plant some trees or pick up trash, just do something useful for the environment.
As for the ethics of flying drones over someone else's property - there isn't any.
If it were my property I'd shoot it down too, and it wouldn't make it back to the road either.

ETA: It's a rare day I don't side with hunters but these aren't "hunters", they're making bird hunting in to some kind of sick circus. True bozos and the kind of people I stay far away from if possible. Problem with them is they make all hunters and gun enthusiasts look bad.
I still disagree with flying drones over someone else's property and spying on them. 2 wrongs don't make a right as they say.
edit on 20-11-2012 by Asktheanimals because: added comment



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


I'm not against hunting or pest control. This activity is neither. It is literally the enjoyment of pulling the trigger and watching the birds suffer and die. These folks literally sit on their asses and blast away like the little future serial killers that they are.

reply to post by mwood
 


Too bad the law disagrees with you. Or care to quote that law? Like someone else earlier who claimed the same but then failed to deliver the actual law. What the activist were doing was legal, end of story. Or can you or someone else point out exactly why they are not the ones being investigated?

reply to post by davjan4
 


Public view, like strolling around the woods torturing birds for amusement. Also you're making stuff up with this reasonable expectation of privacy. They were visible from public space. Nice quote there. If they want to keep their little parties secret they should build a stadium for their sport. They can name it "Future serial killers dome".



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by borracho
I don't think there are any laws governing the use of drones over private land as of yet. There needs to be as this clearly shows.


Bingo. In foreseeable future, private owners/operators will be a minority compared to LEA and others. And there is a serious lack of legislation on that matter. That really is a lot more serious than a pigeon shoot.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   
One of the posters seems very concerned about what law the RC pilot is violating. I wish I could help, but I'm not up on that portion of the law. I suspect it's changing relatively quickly.

But there is a situation which might serve as a defense for the shooters, trees. I know it sounds far fetched, but consider. A tree, planted near a property line, can easily send it's branches over the property of another without ever touching the ground. Sound familiar?

In Pennsylvania, the property owner has some options.

The following case discusses this issue: Jones v. Wagner, 425 Pa. Super. 102, 624 A.2d 166 (1993), appeal denied, 536 Pa. 626, 637 A.2d 286 (1993).1
It generally is understood that an owner of realty has a cause of action against any person who has committed a trespass upon his land. What is less generally known is that this cause of action does not require that the landowner allege any actual injury or damage. The harm that is to be remedied is the right to peaceably enjoy full, exclusive use of the property, not the fact that the property is being damaged.

P.s. The law the RC pilot would be violating is trespass.

Moreover, a landowner generally has a right not only to the exclusive possession of the surface of his property but also to what lies above and below it. There is a property right in the air space above the land, and this property right can be invaded by overhanging objects, including tree limbs. When tree branches overhang a property line, the aggrieved landowner is not limited to seeking monetary relief for any damage that may have occurred.

When tree limbs grow over onto another person’s property, there is a trespass. In fact, in the case of tree limbs, there is a continuing trespass occurring by the mere fact of the overhang and the possessor of land is entitled to pursue various remedies, including self-help. With regard to self-help, an aggrieved landowner is entitled to trim the branches back to the property line, and this is true even if the overhanging branches do not damage the property. Also, if the landowner has incurred reasonable expenses in the course of exercising a self-help remedy, he may recoup those expenses from the trespasser.
Depending on what a reasonable expense is considered to be, a court following this reasoning may force SHARK to pay for the shell that brought the RC down.

I have to admit, that as much as I don't care to do any hunting myself, I wouldn't mind seeing that as the resolution to any charges filed against the shooters.
edit on 20-11-2012 by charles1952 because: add P.s.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
What's to investigate? It's a pigeon shoot. They shoot pigeons.

Did the activists think they had Bengal tigers in there or something?

What a waste of time on their part.


I think their using terrorist tactics of intimidation and it may be working. Glad to see someone stood up against it!



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Thanks for the thread and comments everyone. I sent SHARK a nice little EMAIL pointing out their hypocrisy of quoting broken laws when they break the most important of all.

If you feel the same....Feel free to flood'em..

info@sharkonline.org



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
I bet they had a ball shooting that drone down
Some people have all the fun.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   
The ends justify the means..?





new topics




 
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join