Animal rights drone shot down

Status
Not open for further replies.
If they shot it down with shotguns it's no different then duck hunting.
Click to expand...
Yep, it's no different than duck hunting in one respect. Tell a warden here that you've been shooting ducks across the road and see what happens.:rolleyes: The difference is, it was private property that was illegally damaged while legally operating in public airspace, and done so in a dangerous way. Hard to believe anyone can endorse that.



I'd think unauthorized camera surveillance on private property without a court order is no different than illegal wiretapping.
Click to expand...

Again, many here are quick to respond about how MAYBE there was something done illegally by the antis to justify the shooting. Truth is the facts only support that the only illegal methods employed were by the shooters. The old double standard that is so widely used here on public forums....it's "okay for me to do it, but they better not!", as in.....
"It's okay for me to illegally shoot wolves and cougars, but my neighbor better not shoot at a deer after shooting hours, or step one foot on my property, or I'm gonna turn him in!".

Lotta pots here callin' the kettle black.
 
Did anyone shoot across the highway??? :confused:

Just cause it crashed there, doesn't mean someone shot across the highway to hit it.
 
According to the report, Hindi told the responding deputy the group's remote-controlled aircraft "was hovering over U.S. 601 when he heard a shot come from the wood line. The shot sounded to him that it was of small caliber."
Click to expand...

That's your complainant talking. I've been a cop for a lot of years and I know better than to take a complainant's statement at face value, especially if it is self-serving.

buck460XVR said:
It is also illegal to damage private property that is not on your property without the owners permission. On top of that, since the witness said it sounded like small arms fire, it was unsafe to shoot into the air with solid projectiles
Click to expand...

Except for the complainant's statement, we don't know where the toy was flying when it was shot. For that matter, we don't even know that it was shot. A more compelling argument is that the anti-gunner was flying his toy, was startled at the sound of gunfire and crashed the helicopter. It may have been over the highway, it might not have been over the highway. And, a 12 gauge shotgun is definitely a small-arm. It's perfectly acceptable to shoot a shotgun into the sky. That's what it is designed for.

Were I the plantation owner, I wouldn't admit anything. Make 'em prove it all. My position would be that I and a number of friends were enjoying a little perfectly legal target shooting. "Helicopter? What helicopter?"

You'll notice that the article didn't take a statement from the plantation owner. Simply, he and his guests were enjoying a pleasant afternoon and have no knowledge of a camera-drone-toy-thing.
 
Was there a camera on the drone?

Also, I hardly doubt that an animal rights group would have the same leeway to video-tape private property as the gov't would...if thats what was going on, I'd think there may be some privacy laws broken by the animal rights group.

Maybe a few TFL attorney's could give their input on this.
 
I can see a whole new sport coming out of this. Sell tickets for a chance to shoot down a drone, (Rc plane). Include door prizes and balloons for the kids, maybe even a raffle.
Click to expand...

or a shawtgun. :D
 
If individuals electronic data gathering on someone else's property without the knowledge of the photographed party.....then perverts & peeping Tom's who put cameras in hotel rooms and bathrooms and illegal wiretappers have been unfairly prosecuted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top