Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Orangeburg, SC citizens shoot down PETA/SHARK drone surveilling pigeon shoot. VIDEO

  1. #1
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest

    Orangeburg, SC citizens shoot down PETA/SHARK drone surveilling pigeon shoot. VIDEO

    http://thetandd.com/animal-rights-gr...871e3ce6c.html
    Quote Originally Posted by TimesAndDemocrat
    Animal rights group SHARK said a remote-controlled aircraft like this one was shot down near Ehrhardt. It planned to use the drone to video live pigeon shoots at the privately owned Broxton Bridge Plantation.

    "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."
    http://thetandd.com/animal-rights-gr...tml?mode=video

    http://gizmodo.com/5886013/hunters-s...out-of-the-sky
    Quote Originally Posted by Gizmodo
    Hunters Shoot Animal Rights Drone Out of the Sky

    The gun totin' boys at the Broxton Bridge Plantation hunting ground were planning on having themselves a good old fashioned pigeon hunt. South Carolina's unfortunately named S.H.A.R.K. animal rights group planned to expose them via aerial drone. Guess what happened.

    The Times and Democrat reports that once the hopeful hunters knew they were going to be watched from above, they started to leave the private shooting plantation. SHARK decided to send up their drone anyway—above a group of cranky firearm-wielding southerners. Big mistake, SHARK. Their drone was quickly shot out of the sky:

    "Seconds after it hit the air, numerous shots rang out," [SHARK leader] Hindi said in the release. "As an act of revenge for us shutting down the pigeon slaughter, they had shot down our copter." He claimed the shooters were "in tree cover" and "fled the scene on small motorized vehicles."

    From the photos of the drone we've obtained, it looks like the damage was pretty light—though drones are very sensitive machines, and even a helicopter can be downed with small arms fire. Does this at least provide a possible explanation for the drone we lost over Iran? Are there pigeon hunts there? [The T and D]

    Like PETA/SHARK, the video is a loser.
    Last edited by Herr Heckler Koch; 02-17-2012 at 10:16 PM. Reason: spelling

  2. #2
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,769
    Year or so ago, the same thing happened in Pennsylvania at a live-pigeon shoot.

  3. #3
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest

    Thanks for the recollection.

    http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/anp/...-pigeon-shoot/
    On January 2, 2011 SHARK was legally video documenting a Wing Pointe pigeon shoot using a remote controlled aircraft when it suddenly crashed into the trees,” explained SHARK spokesperson Stu Chaifetz. ”SHARK personnel suspected that the aircraft had been shot down. Video transmitted from the aircraft, along with ground cameras, show that the aircraft was shot at least twice,” Chaifetz said.

    “The first three suspected rifle shots occur at 8, 12, and 14 seconds,” narrated SHARK founder Steve Hindi, showing the video to ANIMAL PEOPLE shortly before posting it to YouTube. ”The fourth shot occurs at 1 minute, 30 seconds. The second and fourth shots are the ones that hit.

    “Our evidence proves that our aircraft was intentionally downed,” Hindi alleged. ”Given the relatively close proximity of homes in the area, this was a reckless act. It should be noted that Wing Pointe’s own website states, ’No rifle or pistol fire are allowed,’ and ‘Shotgun fire only’,” Hindi added.
    Hindi and Chaifetz are involved in the South Carolina incident.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Bed wetting ********** like "SHARK" can try and interfere all they like. I personally would collect the wreckage of a UAV drone I shot down and mount it as a trophy. In many states it's a crime to interfere with legal hunts, even if they're canned slaughters. I've also read the bed wetters didn't launch their drone until after the shoot was over anyway, probably because oxygen thieves don't usually wake up until noon and have too do bong hits just too function. So their stupid video of people leaving on time is just as laughable as the idea a couple rounds of buckshot couldn't have taken down their toy copter with a camera on it.

    Animals do not have rights, they only have recipies.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  5. #5
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Or could it be that the aninal lovers did this as a set up. There is nothing in the video that indicates it was the hunters. All you hear is the shots. These AL could have set up shooters to do this for them; then bring it to the media as if the hunters actually did it. Just another perspective. These AL can and will do just about anything to get publicity.

    If the hunters did it, they are genereally better shots, so it would have fallen in the woods/fields, not in the road!!!

  6. #6
    Regular Member DrakeZ07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Lexington, Ky
    Posts
    1,107
    Would it not be illegal for someone to fly a personal/business UAV over private property? especially for the purpose of obstructing a legal hunt or whatever?

    Unless the Castle Doctrine, and Stand your ground laws don't apply to unwanted aerial intrusions?
    I'm a proud openly gay open carrier~
    Trained SKYWARN spotter, and veteran Storm Chaser.
    =^.^= ~<3~ =^.^=
    Beware the Pink Camo clad gay redneck.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by DrakeZ07 View Post
    Would it not be illegal for someone to fly a personal/business UAV over private property? especially for the purpose of obstructing a legal hunt or whatever?

    Unless the Castle Doctrine, and Stand your ground laws don't apply to unwanted aerial intrusions?
    You should do some research on the regulation of airspace.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Since you brought it up, at what altitude does airspace begin to be unregulated?

    I'm pretty sure an aircraft flying at 10' above my lawn is interfering, but probably not one flying at 1,000.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    343
    In my business I am VERY involved with the type of aircraft that was "shot" down.

    Watching that video I have to conclude that the aircraft was NOT "shot" down, the pilot descended under control to the point that he lost control.

    If the aircraft had been hit, it would have tumbled down uncontrollably immediately upon impact from the round, obviously that's not what happened.

    As for airspace regulation, according to the FAA, they have control of ALL airspace, including that over the top of your house, yard, pool, etc from the surface up.

    http://aspmhelp.faa.gov/index.php/Ai...Classification

  10. #10
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    Or could it be that the aninal lovers did this as a set up. There is nothing in the video that indicates it was the hunters. All you hear is the shots. These AL could have set up shooters to do this for them; then bring it to the media as if the hunters actually did it. Just another perspective. These AL can and will do just about anything to get publicity.

    If the hunters did it, they are generally better shots, so it would have fallen in the woods/fields, not in the road!!!
    I suspect that you have hit the nail right on the head. Never thought of it before, but it makes a lot more sense than the guys at the pigeon shoot doing the shooting.

    Please don't abbreviate animal lover as AL. That is the abbreviation of my home state and most of us here wouldn't put up with the likes of these SHARK whateveryouwannacall'ems.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Urban Skeet City, Alabama
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    I suspect that you have hit the nail right on the head. Never thought of it before, but it makes a lot more sense than the guys at the pigeon shoot doing the shooting.

    Please don't abbreviate animal lover as AL. That is the abbreviation of my home state and most of us here wouldn't put up with the likes of these SHARK whateveryouwannacall'ems.
    Seconded.
    It takes a village to raise an idiot.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    I suspect that you have hit the nail right on the head. Never thought of it before, but it makes a lot more sense than the guys at the pigeon shoot doing the shooting.

    Please don't abbreviate animal lover as AL. That is the abbreviation of my home state and most of us here wouldn't put up with the likes of these SHARK whateveryouwannacall'ems.

    LOL!! Didn't really see the relation AL to Alabama.

    Sorry to offend. I lived in Mobile during my youthful years. I like Alabama.....ROLL TIDE ROLL!!

  13. #13
    Regular Member DrakeZ07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Lexington, Ky
    Posts
    1,107
    Quote Originally Posted by xd shooter View Post
    In my business I am VERY involved with the type of aircraft that was "shot" down.

    Watching that video I have to conclude that the aircraft was NOT "shot" down, the pilot descended under control to the point that he lost control.

    If the aircraft had been hit, it would have tumbled down uncontrollably immediately upon impact from the round, obviously that's not what happened.

    As for airspace regulation, according to the FAA, they have control of ALL airspace, including that over the top of your house, yard, pool, etc from the surface up.

    http://aspmhelp.faa.gov/index.php/Ai...Classification
    I don't know if the following qoute means anything, or nothing at all, as I don't know much of anything about aerospace rules and stuff, but this sounds to me like federal airspace starts at 700feet and goes up... So that should mean that 699 and lower is personal airspace?

    Quote Originally Posted by Class E, FAA classification
    Also in this class are federal airways, airspace beginning at either 700 or 1,200 feet above ground level (AGL) used to transition to and from the terminal or en route environment, and en route domestic and offshore airspace areas designated below 18,000 feet MSL. Unless designated at a lower altitude, Class E airspace begins at 14,500 MSL over the United States, including that airspace overlying the waters within 12 NM of the coast of the 48 contiguous states and Alaska, up to but not including 18,000 feet MSL, and the airspace above FL 600.
    If I'm wrong, then that means all air above ground belongs to the federal government; so my home is above ground, my trees and car rests on the ground with federal airspace and federal wind blowing pass it... Does this also give the government the power to have for example, a AH-64D Apache hovering a foot off the ground in my front yard and it'd be alright because it's not touching the ground, just hovering? I would love to know where our property rights start and end when it comes to airspace and above ground things. And wether or not the 2nd Amendment applies to anything hovering over our homes and private land holdings.
    Last edited by DrakeZ07; 02-22-2012 at 10:25 AM.
    I'm a proud openly gay open carrier~
    Trained SKYWARN spotter, and veteran Storm Chaser.
    =^.^= ~<3~ =^.^=
    Beware the Pink Camo clad gay redneck.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by DrakeZ07 View Post
    I don't know if the following qoute means anything, or nothing at all, as I don't know much of anything about aerospace rules and stuff, but this sounds to me like federal airspace starts at 700feet and goes up... So that should mean that 699 and lower is personal airspace?



    If I'm wrong, then that means all air above ground belongs to the federal government; so my home is above ground, my trees and car rests on the ground with federal airspace and federal wind blowing pass it... Does this also give the government the power to have for example, a AH-64D Apache hovering a foot off the ground in my front yard and it'd be alright because it's not touching the ground, just hovering? I would love to know where our property rights start and end when it comes to airspace and above ground things. And wether or not the 2nd Amendment applies to anything hovering over our homes and private land holdings.
    The airspace is classified for 'control' by airtraffic control towers and such; it's not that they own the airspace, they control it for air traffic. Here is the manual describing it.

  15. #15
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,769
    If I remember my regulations correctly, 700' over rural areas and 1400' over cities are minimum altitudes for manned flight. Under that and you are in violation of FAA regulations.

    Question is: If a UAV of undetermined origin is hovering <700' over your home in any area, is the operator guilty of trespass? Can the UAV be taken under fire if suspected of illegal activity? What, if any, liability would the homeowner who took action against such an illegal trespass have? Criminal? Civil? Dependent upon state?

    Also, if I understand correctly, SHARK has, so far, been unable to reclaim the UAV downed on private property. Am I correct in this understanding?

    Ladies and gents, we can have a lot of fun with this one.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    970
    There are a lot of technicalities that can be debated. But what would the charges be against the gun club?
    Oh those guys shot down my copter...oh ok which guys?
    Idk some guys over there in the woods.
    Ok well who shot it down? Well I don't know some guys over there in the woods.
    Did you see someone shoot it down?
    Well no, they were in the woods.
    Did you see the shot hit your copter?
    Well no it wasn't really visible.
    How do you know they shot it down.
    Well I know they did, it's right here on the video see?
    All I see from that video is a copter flying, some shots heard from an obvious woods\hunting area, and then the copter landing possibly with something wrong with it.
    Do you have any real evidence an identifiable individual shot it down, and not one of your accomplices to make a claim?
    Uh well I know they did. Really, I know they did.

    Hopefully the Gun club guys would be smart and not answer questions.
    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    Bed wetting ********** like "SHARK" can try and interfere all they like. I personally would collect the wreckage of a UAV drone I shot down and mount it as a trophy. In many states it's a crime to interfere with legal hunts, even if they're canned slaughters. I've also read the bed wetters didn't launch their drone until after the shoot was over anyway, probably because oxygen thieves don't usually wake up until noon and have too do bong hits just too function. So their stupid video of people leaving on time is just as laughable as the idea a couple rounds of buckshot couldn't have taken down their toy copter with a camera on it.

    Animals do not have rights, they only have recipies.
    Love it! Although I'm against cruelty to animals, I've zero problems with hunting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    Or could it be that the aninal lovers did this as a set up ... These AL can and will do just about anything to get publicity.
    I wouldn't put it past them. Generally speaking, when one is incapable of respecting the law or the rights of others, one is generally incapable of acting in a lawful manner. Dishonesty goes hand-in-hand with these sorts of people.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrakeZ07 View Post
    Would it not be illegal for someone to fly a personal/business UAV over private property?
    Absolutely! It's covered by USC, FAA regs, and the AIM

    AIM (Aeronautical Information Manual) - "This manual contains the fundamentals required in order to fly in the United States NAS (National Aerospace System).

    Chapter 7: Safety of Flight
    Section 5: Potential Flight Hazards
    Subsection 5: Unmanned Aircraft (UA)
    Para a: "...model aircraft that typically operate lower than 400 feet above ground level..."
    Para b: "UA operations are now being approved in the NAS outside of special use airspace through the use of FAA-issued Certificates of Waiver or Authorization (COA) or through the issuance of an experimental airworthiness certificate. COA and experimental airworthiness approvals authorize UA flight operations to be contained within specific geograhic boundaries, usually require coordination with an air traffic control (ATC) facility, and typically require issuance of a notice to airmen (NOTAM) describing the operation to be conducted. UA approvals also require observers to provide "see-and-avoid" capability to the UA crew and provide the necessary guidance to maneuver the UA away from any detected manned aircraft."

    Chapter 3:
    Section 3: Class G Airspace
    Subsection 1: General: "Class G airspace (uncontrolled) is that portion of airspace that has not been designated as Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace."
    Table 3-1-1: Class G: 1,200 feet or less above the surface (regardless of MSL altitude), or 700 feet or less above the surface if below the upside down layer cake of Class B or C airspace.

    Without diving into the confusing details of airspace, where this incident took place could have been in airspace associated with an airport (Class B, C, D, or E airspace), in which case it would have been illegal, a violation of federal law.

    If it took place in Class G Airspace, that is, outside of Class A/B/C/D/E airspace and below 1,200 feet AGL or 700 feet AGL under Class B or C airspace, then the operator must comply with local restrictions with respect to trespassing, which is usually defined as 1,500' above built-up areas such as towns and cities. If you're out in the boonies, it's usually 400' for the occasional farm.

    So, if the UAV helo was 100' above private property without permission, he's trespassing.

    ...especially for the purpose of obstructing a legal hunt or whatever?
    I think that may violate either fed or state laws, possibly both.

    Unless the Castle Doctrine, and Stand your ground laws don't apply to unwanted aerial intrusions?
    If it's your own private property, and you're allowed to use a firearm to defend against a trespasser, and doing so wouldn't break any other laws (discharging a firearm inside city limits), I think it would probably be legal. I'd check with your sheriff, first.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Motofixxer View Post
    Hopefully the Gun club guys would be smart and not answer questions.
    "Copter? What copter? All we saw were pigeons."
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  19. #19
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest

    Unmanned Aircraft Systems FAA Fact Sheet


  20. #20
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,769
    Does anyone remember what Jeff Foxworthy predicted would happen at the Atlanta Olympics if they released doves in the opening ceremonies?

    I predict a similar outcome if SHARK or PETA starts using UAVs in the Southeastern U.S. I also predict they would not get the UAV back if that happened.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •