Another drone shot down

[Daytona500]

“There should be serious consequences for anyone shooting a weapon into the air!” I’m sure glad legal duck hunters don’t shoot up in the air, otherwise there would be a lot of illegal activity going on. Don’t get mad, I couldn’t help myself.

First of all I'm not a Hunter, and I don't believe in killing innocent animals for sport, BUT I would think that most duck hunters are hunting away from populated areas, over open wet lands or Marshes well away from people, also their using bird-shot which has a very short range with any power, therefore posing no threat to anyone.

 

[paulhackerllc]

Seems pretty simple...

Drone or not, if a person were "disrupting" the hunting, you can't just shoot them bc you want to. Same if someone is taking pictures of you in a place with no expectation of privacy (generally outside) - you can't just shoot them or destroy their camera.

So why would it ever be ok to do this to someone or their property when there is no physical threat whatsoever (especially when no laws are being broken)?

Exactly!

 

[tstr14]

No where in the article did it say the drone was interfering with the hunters. The article did say “ “peacefully document and disrupt”, but it didn’t say the drone was doing the disrupting. But, made a point of saying the drone was launched to capture images.

I regularly fly my M3P 75-100 feet or more over ducks on the lake I live on and it doesn’t even phase them. I would like to know what law the drone pilot broke. We all can probably safely say that in most countries the Hunter broke the law when he decided to shoot down the drone. You say two wrongs don’t make a right, but without more information how do you know there were two wrongs?

"At Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere in Canterbury, a group of animal rights activists gathered to “peacefully document and disrupt” duck shooters, a spokesperson said."

In my dictionary disrupt is the same as interfering. A drone doesn't have to fly in front of a hunter to interfere. Its mere presence can scare off the very animals the hunters are after which IS interfering. But wait, there's more:

"During Saturday’s protest, a drone was deployed over the lake to “capture the carnage”." Oh, so the drone was flying exactly where the hunters were shooting! Play stupid games, win stupid prizes!

 

[mavic3usa]

"At Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere in Canterbury, a group of animal rights activists gathered to “peacefully document and disrupt” duck shooters, a spokesperson said."

In my dictionary disrupt is the same as interfering. A drone doesn't have to fly in front of a hunter to interfere. Its mere presence can scare off the very animals the hunters are after which IS interfering. But wait, there's more:

"During Saturday’s protest, a drone was deployed over the lake to “capture the carnage”." Oh, so the drone was flying exactly where the hunters were shooting! Play stupid games, win stupid prizes!

You can put whatever words you want to their activities, they aren't illegal. Protestors disrupt things all the time, it's not illegal. It becomes illegal when the disruption reaches a criminal level. It's easy to tell, if you don't like Big Oil and you lie down in the middle of the street and chain yourselves together to block traffic in front of their offices, the police will come and arrest you for breaking the law with your illegal disruption. That would be the unlawful disruption. What would be a lawful disruption? Standing on the sidewalk with bullhorns and holding up large signs saying "F Big Oil" outside their offices and when the cars start to back up and nobody can get thru and the disruption means nobody can get to work....well, that's just sucks but it's a legal disruption and what protester do best. And they are doing it here with the hunters and the only arrests will be the shooters who decide to take a break from hunter and engage in criminal activity. But I get it, nobody likes protesters and activists (until you need them) so hunters and Big Oil executives think everything is illegal if they are bothered. Think back to 1700s, we wouldn't have a country if it weren't for protesting and civil disobedience and activists and agitators.

Edit: Wow, I guess I read your other post; I take that back!

 

[mneeze]

"At Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere in Canterbury, a group of animal rights activists gathered to “peacefully document and disrupt” duck shooters, a spokesperson said."

In my dictionary disrupt is the same as interfering. A drone doesn't have to fly in front of a hunter to interfere. Its mere presence can scare off the very animals the hunters are after which IS interfering. But wait, there's more:

"During Saturday’s protest, a drone was deployed over the lake to “capture the carnage”." Oh, so the drone was flying exactly where the hunters were shooting! Play stupid games, win stupid prizes!

Using your own quotation, it says the "activists gathered to document and disrupt..." Just as paulhackerllc mentioned, it does not explicitly state the drone was used to disrupt the hunters. Wouldn't protesters yelling and screaming with signs etc at the hunting location classify as "disrupting"?



Also, "over the lake" does not mean the "drone was flying exactly where the hunters were shooting" unless, of course, the drone were the exact same size as the lake (not likely). Lakes can be pretty big. The drone could have been hundreds of yards/meters away (or even further w/zoom lens), and for all we know could've been oriented behind the hunters, to not be in the crossfire/overshoot.

Regardless if the drone caused the actual disruption/interference, disregarding the law and just shooting it down is not the appropriate (or legal) response. How is this not obvious? If someone cuts you off in traffic, you can't legally just smash their windshield (or anything else) simply because you're driving was "disrupted".

ps - the protest was, by definition, peaceful; the hunters' response was not.

 

[Chip]

Seems pretty simple...

Drone or not, if a person were "disrupting" the hunting, you can't just shoot them bc you want to. Same if someone is taking pictures of you in a place with no expectation of privacy (generally outside) - you can't just shoot them or destroy their camera.

So why would it ever be ok to do this to someone or their property when there is no physical threat whatsoever (especially when no laws are being broken)?

The hunting law I quoted says that you may disrupt a hunt if it violates a public law (ie hunting season) or amounts to a trespass under state law. That is an example of an affirmative defense. Now, let us say you live in a state (and there are several) with laws that now criminalize aerial trespass by drone over private property. Can you not enforce your private property right to exclude trespassers? What if drone is not emitting RID with all the right information? Does that not make it persona non grata free to kill or capture on sight?

 

[Cafguy]

So, you would outlaw all bird hunting since the vast majority is done shooting in the air?

That is totally different, Duck hunters are aware of where they are doing and also they do not bird hunt around populations of people.. They do not just shoot recklessly into the air. I have no problem with bird hunters, as long as they don't do it in the neighborhood.

 

[mavic3usa]

That is totally different, Duck hunters are aware of where they are doing and also they do not bird hunt around populations of people.. They do not just shoot recklessly into the air. I have no problem with bird hunters, as long as they don't do it in the neighborhood.

I cannot tell you as a kid how my birds I've killed with my BB gun out of season in my neighborhood. Thousands.....

 

[mneeze]

I cannot tell you as a kid how my birds I've killed with my BB gun out of season in my neighborhood. Thousands.....

Bro i shoot birds all the time - most of them while driving down the road!

 

[paulhackerllc]

"At Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere in Canterbury, a group of animal rights activists gathered to “peacefully document and disrupt” duck shooters, a spokesperson said."

In my dictionary disrupt is the same as interfering. A drone doesn't have to fly in front of a hunter to interfere. Its mere presence can scare off the very animals the hunters are after which IS interfering. But wait, there's more:

"During Saturday’s protest, a drone was deployed over the lake to “capture the carnage”." Oh, so the drone was flying exactly where the hunters were shooting! Play stupid games, win stupid prizes!

History has a tendency to repeat itself and the actions of protesters is no exception. Given the information in the article and past history of other protests, my gut tells me the protesters were probably disrupting the hunters with the drones, their voices, etc, etc.

But, I would hope that before people pass judgement, they do so with all the information. The article the OP attached did not say the protesters used the drones to disrupt the hunters, period end of story. Capture the carnage, yes, but that can be done at a height that should not disturb anyone or anything. So, do you want to convict someone based on an assumption or take the time and get more information?

 

[Cafguy]

I used to "hunt" birds as a pastime as a boy. We had quail and we would hunt them as boys at times out of season Those were simpler times, ( BOY That's a grandpaw statement ) I was raised in a place that almost all the kids at least had a BB or 22 Rifle. Heck grandma would give me a rifle loaded with snake shot and send me out to mow the lawn.BUT I was a boy I live in a whole different State and city to do any Hunting here. Firearms are highly regulated in this state...So I am Told...YET, If you want an AK there are neighborhoods that are pretty much weapon flea markets in towns here, Something I didnt see in more, "Weapon understanding" Places, and don't even get me started on the crime! You should see the looks on most of the faces when I LEGALLY open carry here!!

 

[mavic3usa]

I cannot tell you as a kid how many non-game birds I've killed with my BB gun out of season in my neighborhood. Thousands.....

Should have checked that more carefully. As mentioned, there were no real laws against shooting Daisy and Crosman pellet guns at pretty much anything you wanted to shoot at in town just don't hurt anyone. Different times we live in. You so much as "draw" a stick figure of a gun or make your fingers into a gun, you get in trouble.

 

[Daytona500]

Bro i shoot birds all the time - most of them while driving down the road!

driving and shooting you must be a bird brain

 

[mneeze]

driving and shooting you must be a bird brain

Sometimes even with both hands at the same time - if the offender really deserves it!!

 

[VenomXts]

There should be serious consequences for anyone shooting a weapon into the air! A person that would shoot at a Drone is showing that they have absolutely no firearms training and has no business using a weapon.

Rifle yes. 12 guage.... duck hunting....

 

[tstr14]

driving and shooting you must be a bird brain

He's talking one-finger birds. Like this, only with a different finger.