A Pigeon shoot? Did they have no fish in barrels?

Love that lady btw

5:00. * blank stare * Priceless

This is an awesome video! Major ass whooping.
Awesome how that cop realizes he's over his head and yet still tries to make up laws on the spot.

It always makes me laugh when a cop looks so completely dumbfounded by a citizen who actually know the law better than they do and quotes it back to them.

I'm confused can someone help me understand.

These women were documenting the gun club doing something illegal (pigeon shoot) so then the gun club called the cops on the women? Or did the women call the cops on the gun club?

kudos to this cop for not freaking out and tasering her

>> ^Darkhand:

I'm confused can someone help me understand.
These women were documenting the gun club doing something illegal (pigeon shoot) so then the gun club called the cops on the women? Or did the women call the cops on the gun club?


I assume the club called the cops because of the ladies filming.

The cops are in the gun club, so they probably showed to try and scare them off.

Pennsylvania's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. Pennsylvania makes it a crime to intercept or record a telephone call or conversation unless all parties to the conversation consent. See 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5703 (link is to the entire code, choose Title 18, Part II, Article F, Chapter 57, Subchapter B, and then the specific provision).

>> ^millertime1211:

Pennsylvania's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. Pennsylvania makes it a crime to intercept or record a telephone call or conversation unless all parties to the conversation consent. See 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5703 (link is to the entire code, choose Title 18, Part II, Article F, Chapter 57, Subchapter B, and then the specific provision).
This doesn't apply to public spaces where there is no expectation of privacy.

>> ^millertime1211:

Pennsylvania's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. Pennsylvania makes it a crime to intercept or record a telephone call or conversation unless all parties to the conversation consent. See 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5703 (link is to the entire code, choose Title 18, Part II, Article F, Chapter 57, Subchapter B, and then the specific provision).
This is similar to what happened here http://www.popehat.com/2010/04/14/embarrass-a-cop-in-maryland-thatll-be-five-years-in-jail/

However on September 27, 2010, some criminal charges against Graber were dropped. Harford County Circuit Court Judge Emory A Plitt Jr. dismissed four of the seven charges filed against Anthony Graber, leaving only traffic code violations. The judge ruled that Maryland's wire tap law allows recording of both voice and sound in areas where privacy cannot be expected and that a police officer on a traffic stop has no expectation of privacy.

This situation is no different.

How annoying. And what a complete waste of time and resources. These people have no idea what they're doing at all, just shooting for hours and hours.

You know we used to eat pigeons? Pretty much everyone used to raise them like we raise chickens now. It's a shame that this can't be a more productive shoot. They could make it like a fund raiser, raise the pigeons themselves, and have a pigeon cook-off when it's all over. That would be delicious, and a way more productive use of the pigeons and bullets involved.

such a weird video but it still gets my upvote.

1. not that I really care one way or the other, but why is pigeon shooting illegal? Aren't they vermin for the most part? They aren't endangered or anything are they?

2. Kudos to the woman for standing up to the cop and the owner, but at the same time, I'm not really going to fault the cop for not being up to a lawyer's standards in the law. Their job is really to stop people from getting physically hurt. There is the issue of whether or not they were on the guy's property sure, but they are two people with cameras, there is no threat of home invasion or anything like that. Sure there is a obviously a dispute whether or not it's ok for them to be there, but they're obviously peaceable so cop intimidation clearly isn't necessary.

Just makes me wonder if there isn't some need for an unarmed subset of the police that handles disputes like this but when you clearly don't need a armed cop. Someone who does know property/civil law very well and can act to settle disputes like this and are unarmed because clearly an armed cop is a waste of resources in a situation like this but you obviously do need a third party to respond to the dispute. For example, wouldn't a police negotiator be better than actual armed police in this matter?

Cops obviously do need to know the laws they enforce, but using cops to settle disputes like this where there clearly is no threat of harm or use of force is utterly ridiculous. Maybe the cops respond to the call, but when they assess the situation and there is clearly no threat of force or harm, hand it off to an unarmed party that can settle the dispute.

I just have a hunch that neither side is completely innocent in this situation.

Go *femme sift, go! Ahahaha, "but wait, there's more"

Adding video to channels (Femme) - requested by Krupo.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by Mordhaus.

eric3579 has fixed this video's dead embed code - no Power Points awarded because eric3579's points are already fully charged.