Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hunters Shoot Down Drone of Animal Rights Group

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the thought-it-was-a-cyber-pigeon dept.

Idle 1127

Required Snark writes "A remote control drone operated by an animal rights group was shot down in South Carolina by a group of thwarted hunters. Steve Hindi, the group president said 'his group was preparing to launch its Mikrokopter drone to video what he called a live pigeon shoot on Sunday when law enforcement officers and an attorney claiming to represent the privately-owned plantation near Ehrhardt tried to stop the aircraft from flying.' After the shoot was halted, the drone was launched anyway, and at this point it was shot down. 'Seconds after it hit the air, numerous shots rang out,' Hindi said in the release. 'As an act of revenge for us shutting down the pigeon slaughter, they had shot down our copter.' 'It is important to note how dangerous this was, as they were shooting toward and into a well-travelled highway,' Hindi stated in the release."

cancel ×

1127 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

If they hadn't brought their drone (1, Insightful)

kyrio (1091003) | about 2 years ago | (#39108191)

If they hadn't brought their drone along, the hunters wouldn't have been shooting in the direction of a highway.

Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108195)

Also, how far away from the highway were they? You could be 10 miles away and still "shoot towards it".
And I'm curious if the animal huggers were trespassing on the private land - if so, they should be arrested.

Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (-1, Flamebait)

EasyTarget (43516) | about 2 years ago | (#39108373)

- if so, they should be arrested.

You mean, by the sherrif that TFA says was present? I guess, since they are still free, that thuis was not the case. Jerk.

Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (4, Informative)

xaxa (988988) | about 2 years ago | (#39108429)

Given that the article says it crashed onto the highway, and helicopters aren't known for gliding, I'd say they were on top of the highway.

Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (-1, Flamebait)

calibre-not-output (1736770) | about 2 years ago | (#39108199)

And if women didn't walk around dressed like sluts, they wouldn't get raped.

Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (-1, Offtopic)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 2 years ago | (#39108213)

And if women didn't walk around dressed like sluts, they wouldn't get raped.

That's true, but how does this relate to the conversation?

Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (-1, Offtopic)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 2 years ago | (#39108225)

And if women didn't walk around dressed like sluts, they wouldn't get raped.

That's true, but how does this relate to the conversation?

I think its a valid analogy.

Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (4, Funny)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 2 years ago | (#39108451)

I think its a valid analogy.

In that case, they shouldn't have shot the drone... they should have beaten the drones father for failing to teach it proper behavior.

Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108317)

It relates because it's the same thing.

Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (-1)

jimmydevice (699057) | about 2 years ago | (#39108343)

its and it's are not the same thing...

Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108427)

Fail.

Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108515)

And if women didn't walk around dressed like sluts, they wouldn't get raped.

That's true, but how does this relate to the conversation?

Analogies are almost always a bad way to discuss, but I'm more disturbed by your "that's true" statement. This is the Burka argument, women should cover up or else men won't be able to control themselves from raping them. Not trying to insult your faith if you are a conservative muslim, but so disagree with this blame the victim approach.

It is also false to claim that you won't get raped if you cover up, look into real research and statistics on rape and you'll find that it is by far not a majority of the rape crimes that fall into this stereotype category. Most rape researches would tell you it is actually usually not driven by the sex, but the use of force, domination, humiliation, pent up anger, partly similar to other violent (and hate) crimes.

Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (1, Flamebait)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 2 years ago | (#39108371)

Who modded the parent post down? I suspect someone who failed to read the context.

The analogy is entirely valid. Rapists have no vaild excuses. And neither do the hunters for shooting towards a highway.

To the reading impaired: the parent post is pointing out that the GP is absurd by analogy.

Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108511)

Yes. Less than 5% of rapes are stranger rape, for men or women. Stranger rape tends to happen to people dumb enough to get so hammered that they pass out, or dress slutty, or go down dark alleys at night thinking they are invincible. Again, those rapes are a handful out of the barrels of rapes reported, which are generally perpetrated by significant others, family members or friends. Now, these stats are completely based on USA rape reports, so they don't apply in Africa where a woman is more likely to be raped than to learn how to read, or where 1 in 3 women claimed to be raped, out of a group of 4000, or where 400 men out of a group of ~1550 admitted to raping more than one woman.

Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108201)

There's no way to know that the pidgeons wouldn't have flown over the highway anyways. The act of shooting in that direction wasn't as dangerous as the drone itself coming down in the middle of highway traffic, which could have caused a fatal wreck.

Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108205)

Right. And if chicks didn't dress all slutty, they wouldn't get all raped, AMIRITE?

Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108393)

Yes. Less than 5% of rapes are stranger rape, for men or women. Stranger rape tends to happen to people dumb enough to get so hammered that they pass out, or dress slutty, or go down dark alleys at night thinking they are invincible. Again, those rapes are a handful out of the barrels of rapes reported, which are generally perpetrated by significant others, family members or friends. Now, these stats are completely based on USA rape reports, so they don't apply in Africa where a woman is more likely to be raped than to learn how to read, or where 400 men out of a group of ~1550 admitted to raping more than one woman, or where 1 in 3 women claimed to be raped, out of a group of 4000.

Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108211)

So that makes it ok?

"If the two-year old hadn't been standing in front of the bad guy, he would never have been shot! Stupid two-year old!"

What kind of backward logic is that?

Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108261)

So that makes it ok?

"If the two-year old hadn't been standing in front of the bad guy, he would never have been shot! Stupid two-year old!"

What kind of backward logic is that?

The same backwards logic that let them violate the airspace rules and launch the "drone" in the first place.

Two wrongs don't make a right. The issue here is that they were denied permission to fly the chopper and did it anyhow. That's the first breach of law. The other issue is that somebody fired a single shot from a small-caliber firearm which seems to have damaged the chopper.

Despite the knee-jerk reactionary statements on here, the firing of the weapon did not seem to violate any laws, as the law enforcement officials filed this as "Malicious destruction of property" and not an illegal firearms discharge or any type of Endangering of Public Safety.

Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (0)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 2 years ago | (#39108315)

Two wrongs don't make a right. The issue here is that they were denied permission to fly the chopper and did it anyhow. That's the first breach of law.

Is it? Commercial planes don't need any permission to overfly property. Or does that only apply above a certain altitude?

Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108469)

On my property, I expect a right to privacy. If my property and privacy is invaded after I deny permission, then your flying camera is merely a "peeping tom tool" at this point.

Expect your little toy to be damaged...and...don't EVEN try to equate it with a piloted commercial aircraft with human lives on board. The attempt just illustrates the weakness of your logic.

That's just plane wrong. (pun intended)

Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108507)

actually YES, same with nation borders. anything that is considered open skies above your property (as i recall 15,000 feet and below) is considered private air space and you can be charged with trespassing. Commercial flight lanes are well above this restriction. But feel free to find out from the FAA your self.

Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (5, Insightful)

JosKarith (757063) | about 2 years ago | (#39108345)

"law enforcement officers and an attorney claiming to represent the privately-owned plantation near Ehrhardt tried to stop the aircraft from flying.
"It didn't work; what SHARK was doing was perfectly legal," Hindi said in a news release. "Once they knew nothing was going to stop us, the shooting stopped and the cars lined up to leave."

TRIED. If launching the drone was against the law then do you not think that the law enforcement officers would have just arrested them as soon as they tried to launch? And shooting at something you don't like the look of because it's over your property is legal where you come from? I assume there are no civil flights, police helicopters, air ambulances, kites...

Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (2)

coaxial (28297) | about 2 years ago | (#39108445)

Two wrongs don't make a right. The issue here is that they were denied permission to fly the chopper and did it anyhow. That's the first breach of law. The other issue is that somebody fired a single shot from a small-caliber firearm which seems to have damaged the chopper.

And yet, no charges were filed, nor even mentioned in the article. Also given that the aircraft was over the public highway at the time of the shooting, you couldn't even say that it violated airspace. So no. There wasn't a "breach of law" on the part of SHARK here.

Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (0)

coaxial (28297) | about 2 years ago | (#39108487)

The same backwards logic that let them violate the airspace rules and launch the "drone" in the first place.

Who said they violated airspace? Given the fact that the helicopter crashed on to the highway, I strongly suspect that it was over the public highway or at least the public owned right of way. No, this is some punk trying to show them faggy liberals how tough they are.

Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108351)

If they hadn't brought their drone along, the hunters wouldn't have been shooting in the direction of a highway.

Totally agree. Similarly, if the shoppers hadn't been at the mall, the mass shooter wouldn't have anyone to shoot at. Of course you should expect people to shoot at will if it is there. duh.

Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (5, Insightful)

Tim C (15259) | about 2 years ago | (#39108365)

What are you, 12? Over here in the adult world we're responsible for our own actions. There was no need for the hunters to shoot at the drone (it wasn't a danger to them they were just pissed off), so trying to blame the inherent riskiness of the hunters' actions on the operator of the drone is facile.

Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108433)

What are you, 11? Over here in the adult world we're responsible for our own actions. There was no need for the drone to be near the hunters (it wasn't any of their business as it all happened on private propery), so trying to blame the inherent stupidity of the drone owners' actions on the hunters is facile.

Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108473)

What are you, 12.5? Over here in the adult world we don't play roshambo [urbandictionary.com] .
If you kick someone in the nuts, you expect them to get pissed. If you rain on the parade of a group of hunters ready to shoot some pigeons, and then you launch your drone in their faces, you either expect a response or you are an idiot. Neither should be allowed near guns.

Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (2, Insightful)

Ice Tiger (10883) | about 2 years ago | (#39108411)

You mean the drone had a mind control ray fitted that made the people shoot their guns in that direction, holy shit!

Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (5, Informative)

rhook (943951) | about 2 years ago | (#39108431)

#6 Birdshot fired out of a 12 gauge has a maximum effective range of around 40 yards, when shooting birds. I can guarantee there was no danger posed to anyone on that highway, the birdshot never even got close.

Re:If they hadn't brought their drone (1)

Ice Tiger (10883) | about 2 years ago | (#39108501)

Let someone shoot you with #6 birdshoot from a 12 gague at 40 yards and post it on YouTube else it didn't happen!

So, is what'll happen if.... (0)

dwywit (1109409) | about 2 years ago | (#39108197)

the taliban gets hold of some drones?

Re:So, is what'll happen if.... (1)

gmack (197796) | about 2 years ago | (#39108245)

Last I heard they were just tapping the satellite feeds from the US drones so unless the US govt has finally started encrypting their feeds the taliban doesn't need their own drones.

Re:So, is what'll happen if.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108253)

It's not possible. Everyone knows, drones are weapons of good and no goverment and forces could use it for bad!!!

This is interesting and all... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108207)

but I don't come to slashdot for this. Is it because they use the word 'drone' instead of remote control helicopter that this becomes something for nerds?

bird shot (5, Insightful)

stoolpigeon (454276) | about 2 years ago | (#39108219)

bird shot fired from a shot gun - upwards - is harmless. It comes down softly. The only way to hurt someone is to shoot them directly and they would still need to be within a few meters. There are other types of shotgun ammunition that can do a lot more harm but the shot for dove, pigeon, etc. is very small and light.

Re:bird shot (4, Funny)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | about 2 years ago | (#39108311)

Bird shot: what you use against dove, pigeon and remote-controlled helicopter...

After all, it flies, so it must be a bird...

Re:bird shot (4, Funny)

bratwiz (635601) | about 2 years ago | (#39108419)

bird shot fired from a shot gun - upwards - is harmless. It comes down softly. The only way to hurt someone is to shoot them directly and they would still need to be within a few meters. There are other types of shotgun ammunition that can do a lot more harm but the shot for dove, pigeon, etc. is very small and light.

This, of course, is known as the Dick Cheney Unprinciple.

(Smirk)

Ya well (4, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 2 years ago | (#39108527)

My guess is that in addition to being anti-hunting, they are also anti-gun (those two often go together). Well something else you discover is that often the anti-gun crowd is very, very uneducated about guns. Rather than learn all about them so as to have more solid arguments, they are scared by them and thus know little to nothing about them.

So it doesn't surprise me at all they they would believe that any gun fired in any direction is a major hazard. Plus I'm sure they are bitching as loud as possible to get attention (and it seems to be working).

For those wondering, the parent is correct: birdshot will fall to the ground harmlessly. Birdshot is composed of hundreds of tiny, tiny pellets, 2mm or so. Thus they lose kinetic energy rapidly in the air, and don't hit very hard when they fall. It is specifically designed to be shot in the air and not have to worry about where it falls. Rather important for bird hunting.

Even buckshot isn't all that dangerous falling back to ground. While larger and heavier, it is also just round lead balls and thus cannot maintain a ballistic trajectory and just falls back to the ground.

Rifle bullets are the ones that are most dangerous, though pistol rounds can be as well. Since they are spin stabilized they can maintain a ballistic trajectory for long distances, miles even. As such they can potentially hit with lethal force even if fired at a pretty steep angle.

Drone's Last Words (5, Funny)

alphatel (1450715) | about 2 years ago | (#39108223)

I am Not an Animal!

Go see the video of the event (4, Informative)

lars_stefan_axelsson (236283) | about 2 years ago | (#39108227)

There's video linked from the fine article. It looks a lot less dramatic than what the summary makes it sound to be. The road is not exactly a four lane interstate. It's single/double track and there's no traffic. The only vehicle you see is the animal rights group's parked van. Go see for yourselves.

WHY (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108231)

why couldn't a bullet hit one of the animal huggers?

And why in the world would you protect pigeons out of all animals? So they could just eat your fries the next time your at the park?

Re:WHY (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108417)

"I wish people I don't agree with would be shot."
  - Hubba "the reason why even moderate people think guns should be more tightly controlled" McRedneck

Re:WHY (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108497)

why couldn't a bullet hit one of the animal huggers?

Do you have any idea how bad hippie tastes?

NRA comments aside (1)

gatorBYTE (93755) | about 2 years ago | (#39108237)

ok, so what is the legal presidence here? I am guessing that you are allowed to fly over private property.... airlines and private planes do that all the time (higher altitude, mind you). but it can't be legal to shoot one out of the air; would this even cover a drone?

Re:NRA comments aside (2, Insightful)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | about 2 years ago | (#39108279)

Arm, it might be a little bit illegal to fly over private property if the sole purpose is to monitor said private property.

Re:NRA comments aside (1)

gatorBYTE (93755) | about 2 years ago | (#39108313)

True enough, although I am not sure it was over the property just yet.. It seems that lots of legal issues are under question here.

Re:NRA comments aside (3, Insightful)

ooloogi (313154) | about 2 years ago | (#39108291)

Is there a difference between flying the helicopter, and flying bird shot by launching it from a shotgun? So then there was a collision between the two unmanned flying objects, and they both fell to the ground.

Re:NRA comments aside (1)

DarkOx (621550) | about 2 years ago | (#39108293)

I don't know the details but yes you are allowed to fly over private property. I think you have to be above a certain altitude though. If your drone flys over within shotgun distance it's likely fair game, so to speak

Re:NRA comments aside (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108333)

So if someone flies their light aircraft too low I'm entitled to start shooting at it? Finally the US recognises the duality of "terrorist" and "freedom fighter".

Re:NRA comments aside (2)

bky1701 (979071) | about 2 years ago | (#39108531)

If you fly your aircraft low enough to be in shotgun range, I'd say they would be acting in self-defense shooting your stupid ass down.

Re:NRA comments aside (2)

TheInternetGuy (2006682) | about 2 years ago | (#39108485)

So would it be OK for me to take a couple of shots at an ultralight with an engine problem coming down for landing on the field behind my house to? No immediate plans, Just asking :-)

Re:NRA comments aside (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 2 years ago | (#39108439)

I am guessing that you are allowed to fly over private property

Sure. You're not allowed to take pictures of people on private property though - especially when they have said they do not want their picture taken. I am assuming that the hunters must have confused the drone for a pigeon.

Not important (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108239)

It is important to note how dangerous this was

Even if it was dangerous, no, it is not important to note that. It's not relevant to the matter and you only sound like you try to discredit your opponent.

Animal Rights? (5, Insightful)

Maimun (631984) | about 2 years ago | (#39108257)

Animals do not have "rights", at least not in the sense humans do. A human has right to live. A pigeon does not have that right -- if one believes otherwise, one has to prevent pigeons from being killed by predators. The "animal rights" activists agree (I think; I have met a few of those) that it is OK animals to kill each other (which they do all the time anyway) and no "rights violation" happens when a hawk kills a pigeon. However, for some strange reason, animals rights are violated when people kill them -- at least, according to the "animal rights" activists. Go figure...

Re:Animal Rights? (5, Funny)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | about 2 years ago | (#39108303)

And if I dress like a hawk and eat the pigeon sitting on a tree?

Re:Animal Rights? (5, Funny)

Krneki (1192201) | about 2 years ago | (#39108339)

Then the animal protection group is the least of your worries.

Re:Animal Rights? (0)

Trracer (210292) | about 2 years ago | (#39108325)

You missed this one, I think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruelty_to_animals#United_States [wikipedia.org]

Re:Animal Rights? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108369)

So? The law stipulates that animals must be treated with certain amount of welfare. That does not imply that the animals have "rights," any more than an anti-graffiti law implies that a piece of wall has rights.

Re:Animal Rights? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108363)

The problem with live pigeon shooting isn't that they're shooting pigeons, it's that they shoot them for excrements and laughter without giving them a realistic chance to escape and probably don't even eat them afterwards.
And they could just use clay pigeons instead.

Re:Animal Rights? (1, Informative)

unixisc (2429386) | about 2 years ago | (#39108391)

Not only that, animals don't have rights b'cos they can't make and keep agreements. For instance, in Africa, you don't have lions signing ceasefires w/ zebras and gazelles to not attack and eat them - they just attack anytime they feel like. And even vegetarian animals, such as deer, can be dangerous when around humans, even though they don't eat them. The only time anybody has rights is when they are capable of making agreements, and abiding by them, and when they don't, such rights get forfeited. You don't have that w/ animals - for instance, while the hawks in the above example don't respect the rights of pigeons, pigeons themselves don't respect the rights of worms, mongeese don't respect the rights of snakes and snakes don't respect the rights of frogs or rats. I agree that animals should be killed either for food/fur/leather or to contain the population (so that you don't have ones like mountain lions roaming around CA populated areas), not be merely hunted for sport, and also killed as painlessly as possible when killed for food. However, that's completely different from stating that they have rights of any kind.

Re:Animal Rights? (5, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 2 years ago | (#39108395)

PETA is currently trying to get the 13th amendment to be applied in the case of five killer whales held by SeaWorld.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16920866 [bbc.co.uk]

Yes, PETA is trying to get antislavery law to be applied against animals, which if successful will seriously change everything...

Re:Animal Rights? (4, Insightful)

AC-x (735297) | about 2 years ago | (#39108425)

Yes, PETA is trying to get antislavery law to be applied against animals, which if successful will seriously change everything...

No, PETA is just trolling the media for lots of free publicity. They're very good at it.

Re:Animal Rights? (5, Interesting)

Tim C (15259) | about 2 years ago | (#39108397)

That's because while it's perfectly natural for animals to kill and eat other animals (including for humans to do it), the activists believe that unlike other carnivorous animals we have a choice.

Even a lot of those of us who do eat meat tend to believe that the animals shouldn't be caused unnecessary suffering, which also tends to fall under the "animal rights" label. As for the name, it's similar enough in intent to human rights that the name is appropriate (and even more so for those of us who do not consider human rights to be "God-given", but to be an artificial construct of a rational, civilised society).

Re:Animal Rights? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108443)

I think you don't really unterstand what animal rights activists are fighting for (or you're lame attempt to troll made you look like an arrogant person).

Animal rights activists aren't trying to stop the killing of animals altogether. They are trying to stop the unnecessary killing and torture of animals. Thanks to them, most animals are put asleep/sedated before being killed to be sold as food or used for research (Animal Vivisection [wikipedia.org] ). Some people kill or torture animals only for entertainment.
That's just like human rights activists aren't trying to stop the killing of soldiers in wars, they are only tying to reduce the deaths and injuries to people who aren't actively enganged in battles. You should think about reading the Geneva Conventions sometimes.

Re:Animal Rights? (1)

ExecutorElassus (1202245) | about 2 years ago | (#39108447)

And why do human being exclusively have this right? Whence comes an inherent right to live, and at what point in the development cycle? And, how do you decide which individual organisms belong to a protected class?

Re:Animal Rights? (1)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | about 2 years ago | (#39108449)

A human has right to live. A pigeon does not have that right -- if one believes otherwise, one has to prevent pigeons from being killed by predators.

Are a human's rights violated when they're harmed by a predator? If they're not, then your entire argument falls over.

Re:Animal Rights? (3, Insightful)

Ice Tiger (10883) | about 2 years ago | (#39108457)

Well actually as far as the universe is concerned Humans have no right to anything either, a black hole could wander into our solar system tomorrow and the universe wouldn't even look up from reading the paper no matter how much we cried out about having rights.

Rights of any kind are an artificial construct and so animals and humans can have whatever rights we want to give them.

Re:Animal Rights? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108489)

However, for some strange reason, animals rights are violated when people kill them -- at least, according to the "animal rights" activists. Go figure...

You do know that with intentionally dumb "arguments" like this, you lose the support of regular/unbiased people and make a perfect case in favour of activists?

Hell, even if it wasn't intentional, that would make it even worse because people that dumb should not be allowed to possess firearms and run around shooting things.

Re:Animal Rights? (2)

fbjon (692006) | about 2 years ago | (#39108509)

I'd say animals do have (some) rights, in the same sense that humans do, since we humans explicitly give them some rights as we give rights to ourselves. See animal cruelty laws and such, at least in most decent places. Now, whether this type of hunting is animal cruelty or not, I have no idea...

Re:Animal Rights? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108517)

It's a violation of the law if a tiger kills a human?

Just wondering... (1)

NetDanzr (619387) | about 2 years ago | (#39108259)

Was the drone dressed like a pigeon?

They should have waited. (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 years ago | (#39108283)

They should have waited until the drone was over their own property (as I am sure it eventually would have been). Then they could have shot it down legally.

With the exception of federally-controlled routes, airspace over your property belongs to you, just as (without prior agreements to the contrary), the mineral rights under your property also belong to you.

This is a long-standing legal principle, not just something I made up.

Re:They should have waited. (3, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | about 2 years ago | (#39108347)

Someone else's property being on your property doesn't give you ownership of it. Just because someone uses my driveway to turn around in doesn't mean I get to destroy their car.

Re:They should have waited. (3, Interesting)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 years ago | (#39108463)

They weren't just "turning around in the driveway", they were deliberately spying on actions taking place on private property. There is a pretty big difference.

If they are using the drone to perform illegal surveillance (it would be illegal in my state anyway), then they have the right to prevent that action, within reason. If that means damaging the equipment that is being used to do it, especially if it is "on" your property (over counts as on), without endangering people, then yes that is almost certainly allowed.

Over the highway? No, they probably didn't have a legal right to shoot it. But depending on the state, the drone operators might still have been breaking the law.

Re:They should have waited. (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 2 years ago | (#39108465)

No it doesn't give me ownership. But you are not allowed to come onto my property to get your ball, that's trespassing. If I want the ball to stay there forever, it's going to stay there forever. I don't need ownership, but I can deny you access.

Re:They should have waited. (0)

bratwiz (635601) | about 2 years ago | (#39108441)

With the exception of federally-controlled routes, airspace over your property belongs to you, just as (without prior agreements to the contrary), the mineral rights under your property also belong to you. This is a long-standing legal principle, not just something I made up.

Right, you haven't fully read your deed, have you?

Re:They should have waited. (1)

dave420 (699308) | about 2 years ago | (#39108461)

Yes, you did just make it up, or at least you made up how to apply it to this case, which is completely different to mineral rights and airspace ownership.

Americans and their guns (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108285)

Why...just why...

Mmmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108299)

Maybe drones taste gud!

Stupid hippies (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108301)

The only solution is to kill all the animals and fish so that they can never again be harmed by humans.

Or maybe the only real solution is to kill all the humans. Yes, that is the best plan. Total annihilation of all human life. Kill EVERYONE.

It is the only way to ensure the survival of all the precious animals, plants, and trees. They deserve, to live, more than. the filthy humans do. We should also kill, all of the primates so as to prevent. the possibility of them evolving, into humans, in the future. This would also have, the net side effect of proving, that we. never, evolved, from them in the first, place, thus proving that everything in the Bible, is and, was factual the. entire time.

DEF 2 AL HU.MAN,S

Re:Stupid hippies (1)

Noughmad (1044096) | about 2 years ago | (#39108459)

They deserve, to live, more than. the filthy humans do. We should also kill, all of the primates so as to prevent. the possibility of them evolving, into humans, in the future. This would also have, the net side effect of proving, that we. never, evolved, from them in the first, place, thus proving that everything in the Bible, is and, was factual the. entire time.

DEF 2 AL HU.MAN,S

William Shatner is going to ex-ter-mi-nate us?

Shot down? (3, Insightful)

geogob (569250) | about 2 years ago | (#39108329)

I've got a different definition of "shot down"... they managed to land the drone right next to the truck. How shut down is that? This is nothing more than marketing-oriented drama.

But it does raise some serious question on trespassing, surveillance, right to privacy, etc.

Re:Shot down? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108421)

I wish the drone had been shot down to crash right on the truck itself, so that these adventurers could have another one of their own.

I wonder if pigeons will evolve (2)

maroberts (15852) | about 2 years ago | (#39108331)

...so they always fly over highways and thus cannot be shot at....

Re:I wonder if pigeons will evolve (2, Informative)

solarissmoke (2470320) | about 2 years ago | (#39108357)

They already have [nature.com] .

Quadcopter hunting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108349)

Perfect sport....FM vs Shotgun

Redirected fire (1, Flamebait)

slidersv (972720) | about 2 years ago | (#39108355)

You do realize, that if that copter didn't bother the hunters, they'd just safely shoot pigeons, instead of directing their fire towards the highway, because of a law-breaking copter.

Re:Redirected fire (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108435)

Except the copter wasn't the one breaking the law, the one(s) who was shooting in the direction of other human beings and damaging property really was breaking the law. I can understand why someone would be very annoyed being spied upon, but taking pictures is very seldom a crime.

Re:Redirected fire (1)

dave420 (699308) | about 2 years ago | (#39108475)

1. The drone wasn't breaking the law
2. Your logic is childish - I guess home owners are to blame for robberies by having the audacity to own stuff.

Who is liable for a accidentally crashed drone? (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 2 years ago | (#39108381)

Forget the hunters. What if some Bozo flying a drone manages to crash it causing significant damage somewhere? Sue the Bozo? Naw, he ain't got no money. Sue the manufacturing for selling a dangerous product?

How do serious RC flyers handle this? Fly only over club owned land? Maybe a collective liability insurance for members?

Flying near highway (1)

maroberts (15852) | about 2 years ago | (#39108383)

Was their drone breaking any regulations by flying close to the highway.

Whilst obviously you may have to cross roads, even if you are using a road as a navigation aid, I'm fairly certain that you fly parellel to it and not over it, with a distance of about 250' recommended.

Who cares (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108407)

PETA is basically a home grown terrorist organization, boo hoo. So they pissed some hunters off, they got what they had coming. No news here.

WTF? (5, Insightful)

Chicken_Kickers (1062164) | about 2 years ago | (#39108415)

WTF is a "live pigeon shoot"? Is there a dead pigeon shoot? The point of hunting is to kill something,so it is absurdly redundant. Pigeons are rats with wings and I assume that the species they are hunting there is not protected or endangered, so why not kill them? From what I have seen on TV and from real life, hunters are actually the most humane people when it comes to animals. Most of them take care to not make the animal suffer.

Re:WTF? (1)

Anzya (464805) | about 2 years ago | (#39108481)

Wish I had some mod-points. I agree, pigeons truly are rats with wings and they spread lots of diseases. So what would be the alternative to shooting them? Poison? Yes let them die slowly...
More birds of prey could be an alternative but that would probably be a more slow method than getting shot plus that everyone with small dogs getting snatched would start complaining :)

Re:WTF? (1)

dave420 (699308) | about 2 years ago | (#39108499)

You are confusing city pigeons and wild pigeons. Causing pain and suffering by shooting far more pigeons than you can prepare and eventually eat is hardly a paradigm of humanity, just destruction for destruction's sake.

HAHAHAA (0)

erroneus (253617) | about 2 years ago | (#39108471)

Hilarious! Where does the stupidity end?

http://www.connect.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150417882782746&set=a.362494502745.165721.340808377745&type=1&ref=nf [facebook.com]

This was their "pigeon shoot." It was CLAY PIGEONS!! A charity benefit for skeet shooting.

This means, among other things, that shotguns were used. This means VERY limited range. As the fire was described as "small arms fire" I an guess that it was a small guage bird-shot weapon... REALLY short range and really not dangerous. (Think 'Dick Cheney shot a guy in the face with one of these with no serious damage') So the allegations of "dangeously close to the highway" are ridiculous. What was dangerously close to the highway was the drone... flying low over private property. I can't say "that" was illegal, but it was definitely more of a hazard than the participants of these charity donors have a little fun.

This guy Hindi is beyond hilarious. He has a record of this type of behavior...a criminal record, apparently. According to commenters of the original story he used a parachute to disrupt a hunting activity... a parachute he was flying. He was held without bail and then hunger-striked his way out. I have expect to read about this guy in the darwin awards at some point in the future.

They aren't pigeons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39108479)

I think I remember hearing that they aren't pigeons on QI. The pigeon was hunted to extinction by American sportsmen in the early 1800's

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>