Not All Shooters Respect the Law or Other People.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Minivans are certainly more effective than killing someone with kindness, but poor substitutes for patience and a level head when your behavior will be held up as an example to support the picketer's position that you "aren't nice"
 
This is harassment of the shooters, nothing less. There was no "hit and run" witnessed... there was a close call. The camera never went to the ground, and the other camera conveniently only starts as the minivan drives into the club. The only shooter I saw "in the wrong" was the one who brandished his pistol in a parking lot-- and he should be charged accordingly.

These protesters should be charged with harassment and defamation, thrown in jail, and have all of the equipment confiscated.

The activity that those shooters are participating in (live pigeon shooting), while perhaps unsettling to even some veteran sportsmen, is perfectly legal in that jurisdiction.
 
I'm not sure that the PA sportsmen were completely in the wrong. Look at the filmers; they could be charged with with harassment, stalking, trespassing. They way they conducted their videos, they were asking and sort of goading on a fight.

That guy never hit the first guy that was taping, and he has obviously never been to Jersey. People in Jersey swerve lanes all the time to show irritation, and no one gets the cops called on them.

The guy that pulled the gun? Well legally the filmer was stalking and persistently harassing him, so really there's no reason by law that he couldn't pull his gun.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this is just another video set up to antagonize good people then twisted to make it look like they are the bad guys.
 
I'm not sure that the PA sportsmen were completely in the wrong. Look at the filmers; they could be charged with with harassment, stalking, trespassing. They way they conducted their videos, they were asking and sort of goading on a fight.
Regardless of goading or "asking for it" it is unlawful to assault anyone without a justification that meets the standards set out by law. Generally that involves a threat of grievous immediate injury or death. Not obstruction of a hunt or harassment. If they are breaking a law, the police should be notified and should force them to cease. If they are causing other types of harm, a civil suit should be brought against them. At no point is physical violence an excusable response, absent the protesters turning to physical violence themselves.

That guy never hit the first guy that was taping
This would seem to be the reason the driver was not charged with more serious crimes. The evidence presented by the tape is obviously the best they had, and it doesn't show any actual contact. We hear a "thunk" but that almost sounds more like the noise of the protester slapping the car's sheet metal, than the sound of someone being struck by an automobile. Absent any actual injury -- which would be attendant to any real vehicle impact, of course -- there's nothing here that is proof of an actual assault.

The guy that pulled the gun? Well legally the Filmer was stalking and persistently harassing him, so really there's no reason by law that he couldn't pull his gun.
Not, so. This is completely incorrect! You may not lawfully pull a gun to scare off someone who's harassing you with a camera and impolite questions. There must be a credible, immediate, threat of grievous bodily injury or death (or one of a short list of other felonies) to legally justify bringing your weapon into play. That man in the parking lot (if the event was real and not staged for dramatic effect) deserves to be arrested and charged.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this is just another video set up to antagonize good people then twisted to make it look like they are the bad guys.
Hard to say in broad black and white terms. It certainly is a grossly slanted, biased view. It also does depict several people appearing to behave in a way I'd judge as not "good."

The videographers set out to film some people doing something that those people really don't want to be seen doing. And they hoped to goad some of the pigeon shooters into reacting in a way that would make them look even worse. In this, the protesters have certainly succeed.
 
Last edited:
Ranger30-06 said:
The guy that pulled the gun? Well legally the filmer was stalking and persistently harassing him, so really there's no reason by law that he couldn't pull his gun.

With the evidence available in the video clip pertaining to this altercation, the man pulling his firearm would have a difficult time aligning with the Reasonable Person standard.

I fail to see where this man could reasonably believe there is a threat of death or grievous bodily harm.
 
Whoops I see that I took too long to post -- Sam beat me too it. Sorry Ranger, didn't mean to post the same premise as Sam. I was on the reply screen for too long and paused for phone calls.
 
Think of it this way. The minivan, from the point of view of the photographer, was being used as a deadly weapon. Had he been carrying, could he have fired into the windshield? I realize the film is edited to be one sided, but there was a lot in there that showed the club members in the wrong.

Not to get off topic, but I am very anti abortion and have participated in demonstrations. Whatever I think of the animal rights groups views, they have the same right as any other group to stand on public property and demonstrate and act to shame those they think are doing wrong.
 
<PM Sent>

Husker-- the car was not pointed at the cameraman-- at best it was a strike with the mirror, not the vehicle. If I pulled a gun and shot the windshield of every car I saw that took a turn too close to a pedestrian, either I'd be in jail, or there'd be a lot of dead drivers out there!

There's a big difference between protesting and filming. I don't have a problem with them protesting-- it's their first amendment right. Filming on the other hand, is an invasion of privacy to the members of that club. The video lists their names, etc... if that's not harassment, I don't know what is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I certainly don't respect to many members of animal rights groups. As someone that has been in the poultry business in on form or another most of my life other than my 6 years in the service, I have gotten more than fed up with these people. They label the farms as cruel in general, and they certainly see every aspect of getting the birds from farm to store as cruel. If it was up to these groups poultry would be grown open range, caught gently, put in a padded box for transport, killed in a gas chamber (which suffocation by gas seems so much less cruel than the current method of being hit by a high voltage blast of electricity that fries their brain instantly), then hung and processed after they are gassed. I wonder what the price of chicken and turkey in the store would be then since it would be a pretty rare commodity.

I am also from the town of Yellville, AR where for the first time in 66 years wild turkeys were not tossed from planes at the yearly Turkey Trot festival because PETA was offering a 5000 reward for the pilots and had the FAA (who was at the moment begging for funding on capitol hill, but had enough money to send a team of agents to BFE Arkansas to catch someone tossing a turkey out of a plane) send a team to town over the weekend to keep watch. What little justification they had to stop that was a few birds that didn't fly but plummeted, something that wasn't a problem until pressure from PETA made it so the pilots had to fly higher, and quit taking the time to glide around for a while and toss the turkeys to avoid PETA reading their Registration numbers. Not to mention those turkeys that did not fly certainly didn't suffer. The hit hard and were dead before they bounced, plus some one still takes them home and cooks them for dinner. The tradition was originally started as a way to release some wild turkeys back into the wild. Some of them get caught by the kids of the town and used for pets or dinner, and others fly off into the woods to help repopulate.

Luckily I do respect the law for the most part. I would love to beat on or swerve at some of these people. For that matter it didn't even look to me like the guy swerved. It looked like he just mad the turn into the driveway really fast. I'm not sure if I support shooting animals just for pure sport, but I certainly don't support the methods these groups try to use to terrorize people.

From what we could see the guy certainly didn't have justification to brandish his carry weapon, but knowing how those people operate, It wouldn't surprise me if off camera they didn't have someone approach the guy with a weapon of their own just to get that reaction on film.
 
Guys, the questions of animal cruelty or animal rights activism isn't really a THR discussion, and the hit and run issue isn't really either.

The THR focus here is, how should we react to harrassment while shooting or hunting, and does a carry weapon have some place in that interaction (clearly, NO).
 
how should we react to harrassment while shooting or hunting,

In many states it is against the law to interfere with people in the legal and lawful pursuit of game. In PA, flyers are a legal activity as well.

You summon the police and have them arrested
 
"In this, the protesters have certainly succeed."

This must be the human decency the OP referred to, right? Some of his humanly decent friends maybe?
 
This must be the human decency the OP referred to, right? Some of his humanly decent friends maybe?
Clarify?

I don't know who all the other folks the video guy got on tape were (for all I know they were actors brought in by the protesters to instill some drama), but they weren't behaving in "humanly decent" ways, certainly.
 
In many states it is against the law to interfere with people in the legal and lawful pursuit of game. In PA, flyers are a legal activity as well.

You summon the police and have them arrested

In these clips, I did not see any protesters interfering with the legal and lawful pursuit of game, just videoing the activity. The shooters should have called the police, but they did not. Strangely, they do seem rather bothered by the notion that they are documented doing the activity. I wonder why that is.
 
How to react? Be friendly, offer a kind word and enjoy their errant nonsense. In fact I envy the PA guys. We hardly ever get PETA protestors around here. There were some dressed as fish a few years back and it was a lot of fun to watch them hand out info on how fish feel pain and such. They decided to leave after a local drunk took these giant talking fish to be a symptom of his excess drinking and chased them around yelling incoherently.

I wish they'd come protest our range. I get a kick out of them.

I agree that this doesn't really cross the line into interference with a lawful hunting activity. Whether they're trespassing or not depends on how far the road property extends. But in any event it's real stupid to try to run one down. And these guys look like louts smacking the camera around. They play right into the hands of the activist. Think how different it would be if they smiled and were friendly?

Well legally the filmer was stalking and persistently harassing him, so really there's no reason by law that he couldn't pull his gun.

This is incorrect. Unless the filmmaker posed an imminent unlawful threat of death or serious bodily harm, or some other very narrow circumstances arose, there should have been no iron drawn. Firearms are NOT to be used as a means of winning arguments!
 
Last edited:
The activity that those shooters are participating in (live pigeon shooting), while perhaps unsettling to even some veteran sportsmen, is perfectly legal in that jurisdiction.


And videotaping such an event and showing it to a public that will be disgusted by it is how laws develop that prohibit it. Which is their intention.
I think it seems a little selfish to go through the effort to capture or raise live birds specifically to transport them to a range and waste their lives as targets.
They are not just killing some nuisance animal like pigeons are some places, but transporting a live animal to kill for recreation.
The public generally reacts in a way when such things are exposed to create laws that ban such activities.
So those shooters should be quite concerned if they wish to continue such a thing, the video the activists are taking will probably put an end to that activity eventually.



As someone that has been in the poultry business in on form or another most of my life other than my 6 years in the service, I have gotten more than fed up with these people. They label the farms as cruel in general, and they certainly see every aspect of getting the birds from farm to store as cruel. If it was up to these groups poultry would be grown open range, caught gently, put in a padded box for transport, killed in a gas chamber (which suffocation by gas seems so much less cruel than the current method of being hit by a high voltage blast of electricity that fries their brain instantly), then hung and processed after they are gassed. I wonder what the price of chicken and turkey in the store would be then since it would be a pretty rare commodity.

This is true, many activists have standards for animals that would increase the cost of meat to well beyond what it is today. Putting it out of reach of a lot of budgets. The activists don't mind because many of them are vegetarians or eat little meat anyways, so something more expensive they don't plan to buy does not impact them.
Although some of the things done to animals when they are seen as nothing but a dollar sign are quite cruel. Lives that are never lived, and then killed for profit. People that kill something all day also cannot allow themselves sympathy for the animal or it would make the job difficult, so they become cold and indifferent to its feelings, which can allow for more cruelty.
So some pressure on the industries can be a good thing to remind them to be humane.



I should note that cameras are an easy way to tell only the part of a story that benefits the narrator. They can edit out all the parts where they harass, use foul language, and cross the line in disrupting events, ruining hunts, etc Then show all the footage where the angry people they are harassing finally lash out or show poor self control, while the person doing the filming looks innocent and just trying to film.
The individual filming can have poor self control for hours and most of it is never shown on film, and the people being filmed only have to misbehave briefly and every moment of it will be shown.
They can harass groups of people for days or weeks, then compile a video of the few instances where someone lashed out at them over that period of time.
 
Guys, the questions of animal cruelty or animal rights activism isn't really a THR discussion, and the hit and run issue isn't really either.

The THR focus here is, how should we react to harrassment while shooting or hunting, and does a carry weapon have some place in that interaction (clearly, NO).

I'd say we've exhausted this one then.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top