“aggress on others by placing them in danger by recklessly firing a shotgun in the air in a suburban environment”
I don’t know too many ‘suburbs’ with “country roads” and “orchards”. Want to try again?
A “libertarian” has no problem “destroying other people’s private property” if that property is violating the…
RadCap
rad5cap
“Not sure how people believe that they are above municipal firearm or vandalism laws”
Funny - I don’t recall the article mentioning the shooter being accused of breaking such laws. In fact, the article indicates that trespass was the issue upon which the case was brought and decided.
“You would also be committing a crime in pretty much ALL jurisdictions”
“Could you define “privacy” in such a way that it’s threatened by a drone on someone else’s property that has no camera equipment of any kind?”
“Couldn’t you at least try talking first?”
The article is silent on whether this was the first incident or the last in a series of incidents. Either way, the issue of whether you should or shouldn’t “go straight to boom” isn’t a political rights issue, but a moral issue. And the article is dealing with the political…
“it’s somewhat doubtful that this constitutes a trespass.”
If your claim were correct, given that -neither- party disputed the fact the drone was shot down, IF that was the issue, there should have been a summary judgment for the pilot. Supposedly that did NOT happen. The article indicates the issue was decided on…
“even if it was over your property, you have no right to destroy another person’s property.”
Given the article indicates the court’s judgment was based on whose version of events was accurate, that would suggest your blanket assertion is incorrect. If your premise were true, it wouldn’t MATTER whether the pilot’s story…
“if you destroy someone else’s stuff for being on your property, it’s on you to prove that it was there.”
Exactly
“can we not paint 300 million people with the “shoots things at random” brush?”
“even if it were trespassing, it still doesn’t give you the right to shoot it”
Given the article indicates the case was decided upon which person’s story about tresspass was accurate, it appears the -right- to shoot it was never in question. In other words, if the shooter had been correct about it being tresspass, the…
“Pick one.”
False alternatives are a logical fallacy, making your post as irrational as dirtyvu’s post.
Defending against trespass isn’t ‘taking the law into your own hands’, any more than fighting back against a rapist is ‘taking the law into your own hands’. You have the right to self-defense.
Whether you practice that right correctly or mistakenly doesn’t change this fact.
“You’ll still require evidence that someone else’s drone actually trespassed on your property”
Exactly. It’s truly amazing how many people proceed from the premise “Guilty until proven innocent”.
“does that give you a right to destroy someone else’s property?”
Ye olde “Property rights for me but not for thee” hypocrisy.
Stop “Global Slowing”!
This is why I always liked the essay “I, Pencil”
“church people were not publishing articles hugely abusive to white supremacists to incite this”
“Charlie Hebdo and whether BO was there or not has got fuck all to do with SC”
Thank you for demonstrating the hypocrisy SO clearly. Stand against the murder of INNOCENTS? Only if they are the right kind of people.
In other words, the principle that one must stand up against the murder of innocents is NOT a principle you or the President preach or practice. Yours is the notion of freedom for…
The arbitrary practice of a principle is the rejection of it as a principle.
That is the nature of hypocrisy.