Pigeon shooter draws XDm, caught on camera

This reminds me of Whale Wars. The activist believe they are in the right because they think what they are doing is saving the animals. The other side say it is within their rights to pursue happiness.

Both sides have issues. IMHO, most activist incite as much as they can, regardless if they are wrong, they justify it by through spinning it 'its for the animals'.

OBTW, I do not participate in the pigeon shooting sport. However, pigeons and squirrels are a nuisance.

I have nothing against shooting nuisance pigeons.

I also learned at an early age that if you are going to shoot something, then shoot to kill. If the animal is merely wounded, you did not place your shot good enough and must finish the animal off humanely with a second shot or by other means.

Allowing a bird that has been shot to lay in a pile of its fellow dead birds still alive and thrashing is not the proper way to treat them or any other animal.

As far as brandishing? Not sure, because I cannot see what the other people are doing. If the guy was in fear for his life, perhaps. of course this begs the question, why did he stop instead of driving them right to the police station?

IMHO, everybody here had a part in the escalation and what is seen on the tape.

rscottie said:

As far as brandishing? Not sure, because I cannot see what the other people are doing. If the guy was in fear for his life, perhaps. of course this begs the question, why did he stop instead of driving them right to the police station?

Click to expand...

Why did he stop is a good one, here's another - why didn't he pull the trigger? If you're in fear for your life you don't pull a gun out, point it at people, then turn to your buddy and start sayin' "DID YOU SEE HIM HIT ME!?" Obviously the two pursuing him were not threatening his life, thus the handgun was unnecessary and criminal.

Schlitz said:

Why did he stop is a good one, here's another - why didn't he pull the trigger? If you're in fear for your life you don't pull a gun out, point it at people, then turn to your buddy and start sayin' "DID YOU SEE HIM HIT ME!?" Obviously the two pursuing him were not threatening his life, thus the handgun was unnecessary and criminal.

Click to expand...

I agree. He only pulled a gun to correct the mistake(s) that he had made. Which don't make it legal.

If you break into my house and I come after you with a 12ga you cannot legally shoot me. I might have made it clear to you that only one of us was going to walk out of here but it is still not justifiable self defense.

Schlitz said:

...I am not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure you cannot get in someone's face aggressively, lay hands on them, and then pull a gun when they retaliate...

Click to expand...

In Alabama, the law specifically disallows an unjustified aggressor from claiming self-defense, even if he is responding to the response to his aggression.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Schlitz said:

Why did he stop is a good one, here's another - why didn't he pull the trigger? If you're in fear for your life you don't pull a gun out, point it at people, then turn to your buddy and start sayin' "DID YOU SEE HIM HIT ME!?" Obviously the two pursuing him were not threatening his life, thus the handgun was unnecessary and criminal.

Click to expand...

I agree, you should not pull your gun unless you are legal to use it...but, since we've taken to speculation...we cannot see what the people were doing in the car and he can, he may have thought they were going for a weapon and pulled his out before realizing he was mistaken. The law (in most states) does not say you have to see a weapon to use yours, but only that you must be in fear for your life.

I am not sticking up for this guy pulling his firearm by no means as it appears to me that he escalated the situation.

But, it is not always what happened that gets you in trouble or keeps you out of trouble...it is how well you can articulate what you say to the police. Who knows, this guy may have clammed up and got a good lawyer that was able to convince the judge how afraid his client was after being "stalked" or whatever.

Well, here's what I saw

The guy driving and gal camerawoman chased down this guy. That's harrassment in most locals. He'd had enough, stopped his vehicle, and confronted his harrassers.

As he approached the two, he stiff-armed the camera-woman with his left hand, interrupting the video, then claimed the other guy hit him. There's zero evidence, even in the heavily jostled footage that he was hit. When the video returned, the guy drew his firearm, made what I consider false accusations, before bleeding off to his vehicle and leaving.

If I were a judge...

Based on this evidence alone, I'd hit the harassers with two counts each, one for tailing him, another for engaging him after he stopped (instead of taking the more prudent action of simply driving away). I'd also hit the gunman for assault (violent camera obstruction), brandishing (there was no clear and present danger for him to draw his firearm, aside from his obvious falsified report), and possibly for violating whatever local laws might be present with respect to actively engaging a potential threat. How about driving to the local police station?

On the other hand, if someone's following me like that, I'll find a defensible position while notifying 911, then engage them as necessary, preferably in a remote area, so as to minimize any innocent casualties. Not so if I'm in contact with police and they advise me to pull into one of their parking lots, at which point I'll simply duck and let them take care of the two IDIOTS who were harassing the guy in the SUV while filming.

What MORONS! I'm DANG glad they were charged with four counts while the other guy was only charged with two. They EARNED those charges.

xmanhockey7 said:

Where's the sport in killing these animals let out of boxes?

Click to expand...

Did the OP change the original video?

The video posted is just of the altercation. I didn't see the video of what these guys were doing. I think there may have been more video, then removed.

Schlitz said:

Full video found. It appears both parties are at fault with their behavior.

1. You don't follow people, especially when they're trying to obviously lose you...that's how you get shot.
2. you don't follow them and then get out to start a confrontation

For the pigeon shooter

1. you don't get out if in a parking lot if someone is following you
2. you don't assault people
3. you don't pull a gun after assaulting someone when they go to retaliate.

Original post is updated.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with point one on top. Following someone to get their license plate does not equate to 'that's how you get shot'. (as long as you stay in the car).

The mistake the followers made was:
1. Continuing to follow once they got the plate;
2. Getting out of the car when the person they were tailing stopped and walked up to them.

The only cites made should be against the pigeon shooter guy, imo. He committed assault by pushing the camera woman (who did get a bit too close). He committed the crime of brandishing by pulling his firearm.

If the pigeon shooter is not doing anything illegal and I understand you can shoot pigeons in a box in PA, then why is he bothered by being filmed? It's clear that the people following and filming are clearly not going to assault or abduct or harm the people they're following.

Finally, I don't understand the behavior of the cops. Why are they protecting the shooters, or why are they becoming involved at all, unless the people who were assaulted filed charges against the shooters?