Phillyburb hunters shoots down activist spy drone

page: 8
22
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by howmuch4another
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


There is no source for the claim as you are correct. It is just lame on the part of the shark folks but unfortunately NOT illegal. The supreme court ruled in Ciraolo vs. California that there is no Fourth Amendment protection from aerial recon...period.

If i saw one of those drones flying over my property and i knew it was not a government agency i would shoot it down.
For all i know its some criminal checking to see if someone is home before they enter the property to break in.

I my view its legal to shoot down drones that are spying on your property in shotgun range. (less then 100 feet up)

One of these days some pervert is going to fly one of these drones over a nudist camp and and post his videos on the internet.and end up in jail..

i always wanted to see what damage one of these would do to a video camera.
www.wickedlasers.com...

edit on 20-11-2012 by ANNED because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
God i love fighting the losers that have NRA bumper sticker and the like.. There ALWAYS the biggest P*ssies..



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   
So... let's say you know for a fact that right next door to you lives a registered sex offender... and one of these "just so happens to be" flying over your pool while your 8 year old daughter and her friends are swimming in your pool... then what do you do...



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Best read i've had in ages.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by foodstamp
 


Oh what laws would those be? Been asked and noone has provided any. Since you even have a ready list feel free to post them.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


Why would anyone want to shoot pigeons? just curious



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Why does this story make you proud to be an American? Because a group of men shot down a toy plane with big guns? Perhaps next time they will shoot a protester.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11I11
Why does this story make you proud to be an American? Because a group of men shot down a toy plane with big guns? Perhaps next time they will shoot a protester.


That's just crazy talk, everyone knows protestors don't taste nearly as good as a nice pigeon pie!



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Maybe this "activist" group is just a front for something else. It's a great way to test out simple spy drones on citizens.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 06:33 AM
link   
I hope the pigeon shooter read this.

There is a better way of dealing with these R/C drones.

Ask any Ham radio operator.
You likely have one in your group.
Most hams have radios that will operate in the frequency spectrum used by the R/C community. Many with power outputs reaching 1000 watts. Compare that with the control units in the hands of the operator 1/4 to 1/2 watt.

The hams could wait until the drone is at a high altitude and then flip the swithch and over power the drones reciever. It will be a crash with no visible cause. Or has happened to me years ago a fly away and crash at distant site. And no it's not plusable to take control of the drone due to the differences in the way different brands of R/C equipment transmit. Just over power the reciever inthe drone.

Either way the drone operators will have no way of tieing his crash to the hunters.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
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.


Here's an example of an RC kit that would have no trouble carrying both. www.youtube.com... It comes in at 185 pounds, so another 21 ounces isn't going to matter. It has 4 Jetcat P160 engines which put out 36 pounds of thrust each, which gives a thrust to weight ratio of .78.which is very close to that of the F-22 Raptor. Adding thexponder would make less than a 1% difference in the effective thrust to weight ratio.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
These farms where they shoot them they are anything but culled. They are held in cages and the set free so they can be shot one second into their flight.

How brave.
Would be alot braver to shot them in the cages.

Makes me wanna pick up hunting and go hunt for hunter.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by F4guy
Adding thexponder would make less than a 1% difference in the effective thrust to weight ratio.


Do you mean like a swallow carrying a coconut?



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude

Originally posted by F4guy
Adding thexponder would make less than a 1% difference in the effective thrust to weight ratio.


Do you mean like a swallow carrying a coconut?


What do you mean? An African or European swallow?
In order to maintain air-speed velocity, a swallow needs to beat its wings forty-three times every second, right?
edit on 21-11-2012 by davjan4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by davjan4
 


well, I suppose if he grasped it by the husks....



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by foodstamp
 


Oh what laws would those be? Been asked and no one has provided any. Since you even have a ready list feel free to post them.


forgive me, I said laws because I was trying to keep it short and sweet. However, there is a good defense of invasion of privacy if SHARK would try to sue for damage to the drone. Not that anyone is going to admit to it.

I really don't see any major crime outside of possible misdemeanor tresspass. That's what it's called in this state if your were to peer into windows. I know some states have felony voyeurism laws that apply to people telescoping into other peoples windows and what not. This is a state issue so it would depend on the laws of that state.

And that's what my letter consisted of. Explaining the violation of privacy.

I know this much, If I had a camera hanging in my tree and we were neighbors. And my camera was there for the purpose to look into your home. I'm wouldn't be civily liable for the damages to it if I were to destroy it without tresspassing. Or, Of course, you could call the cops and just have me prosecuted that way. And they would take it down. But again, that's in this state.

In this state. Voyeurism and tresspass are all lumped into one charge varying by degree of felony to misdemeanor.

This is new ground certainly so it's definatley one for the courts. And that's what worries me most. For example, If this was challenged all the way to the supreme court, (and eventually this case or another one like it will) I fear the ramifications of it if it were to go in favor of the SHARKs. It would/could open the doorway to all kinds of additional invasive non warranted surveilance by law enforcement, all the way down to your neighbor. Scary implications.

I in no way support the pigeon shooters actions. I think it takes a certain sicko to do such things. But an advocacy group should be riling the support of the people in favor of legislation against these acts. A national news coverage of something like this would turn a lot of heads. But SHARKS intimidation tactics, past and present, borderline on verge of vigilante thuggery.

Sometimes SHARK and groups like it get so focused and emotionally charged about their "goal" that they forget there's a whole PR campaign that must be fought too. And that my friend, is left up to the people.
edit on 11/21/1212 by foodstamp because: Addition



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   
I hadn't thought of that angle, Here in New Mexico it is illegal to harrass legal and licensed hunters by any means including scaring game with an aircraft. I don't think that justifies destruction of someone elses property, and I do not know if there is a simular law where this incedent took place. It is possible though that they had the legal right, especially if they felt threatened, to defend themselves with force. Maybe time to do some research. Great thread BTW, it got a lively discussion going!
edit on 21-11-2012 by borracho because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by foodstamp
 




I in no way support the pigeon shooters actions. I think it takes a certain sicko to do such things.

At least they have a chance of getting away.
You can't say the same for the turkeys on the farm.

Are you aware that in Texas they have African hunting safaris? Wild animals born and allowed to grow specifically for hunters to pay a fee to shoot them. If I recall correctly some species have larger numbers in Texas than they do in Africa.
Texas Exotic Hunting



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by foodstamp
 


They have no expectation of privacy when they can be viewed from public space. So that wouldn't work at all. There is a reason why they are not investigated even thought they have been doing this for ages.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by foodstamp
 




I in no way support the pigeon shooters actions. I think it takes a certain sicko to do such things.

At least they have a chance of getting away.
You can't say the same for the turkeys on the farm.

Are you aware that in Texas they have African hunting safaris? Wild animals born and allowed to grow specifically for hunters to pay a fee to shoot them. If I recall correctly some species have larger numbers in Texas than they do in Africa.
Texas Exotic Hunting



I believe you.

Turkey's on the farm are killed to be eaten Pigeons are shot and disposed of for a man to get his rocks off. I wouldn't equate the too as being the same.





new topics
 
22
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join