7 ms·

Seems pretty entrapmenty.

• ceejayoz 3y ago
  No; it's the same as a drug/prostitution sting.
  • solardev 3y ago
    Maybe I'm missing some context here, but as an outsider, the whole thing seems like a ridiculous setup. "Help, we shot a deer and want to find it in the dark so we can put it out of its misery. Will you help us?" Which person of good conscience would say no to something like that? Who would even think that would be illegal, much less under four different state laws...?! Why are we spending tax dollars on something like this? What sort of harm are we trying to prevent by forcing deer to die slow, agonizing deaths in the dark?
    • ceejayoz 3y ago
      "Help, I'm hungry. Will you rob that store?" Good, humane results don't make the acts legal.
      • solardev 3y ago
        I'm not arguing that laws should be ignored as long as the outcome justifies it. I'm asking why this is illegal to begin with. This seems more like "Help, I'm hungry. Will you turn on the kitchen light so I can find the pasta I bought?"
        • ceejayoz 3y ago
          The article indicates part of the problem was the lighting on the drone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotlighting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotlighting is widely illegal. He most certainly would've known this; it's clear from https://www.instagram.com/wingydroneservices/ https://www.instagram.com/wingydroneservices/ they're at least close to the hunting world.
          • solardev 3y ago
            It still doesn't really explain why this is illegal. It's also not illegal everywhere. And using a drone to locate a fallen animal isn't the same as using a light to mesmerize it. If you try sufficiently hard, you can always find random charges to throw at someone, and if they don't have good enough lawyers, they're fucked. That doesn't mean the laws are just or desirable to begin with. It also doesn't explain why those laws were written in the first place, i.e. what issue they were initially trying to address.
            • ceejayoz 3y ago
              > It still doesn't really explain why this is illegal. You'll find various explanations, but the most compelling to me is "because you probably can't see what's behind the lit-up deer when you shoot very well". Good way to risk hitting something/someone. > It's also not illegal everywhere. It was here, it seems.
              • solardev 3y ago
                > You'll find various explanations, but the most compelling to me is "because you probably can't see what's behind the lit-up deer when you shoot very well". Good way to risk hitting something/someone. Seems... dubious. If you can't see behind the deer while it's lit up, you certainly can't see what's behind it in pitch darkness. Presumably the eyeshine of other animals, or the reflective clothing / panicked shouts of another person behind the deer, would all stand out more in bright lighting. > It was here, it seems. Are you sure about that? There was no law per se against using drones to recover deer, so they had to cobble together 4 vaguely relevant statutes. And even the judge reprimanded the legislature for having such confusing, ambiguous laws on the books. I believe this is still under appeal, so it may ultimately resolve in favor of the drone operator...
                • ceejayoz 3y ago
                  > If you can't see behind the deer while it's lit up, you certainly can't see what's behind it in pitch darkness. You can demonstrate this pretty easily at night in your backyard. Have someone shine a flashlight at something. Same reason photos of the moon don't show the stars in the sky; they get washed out by the brighter object. > Are you sure about that? That's a reply to "It's [spotlighting] also not illegal everywhere." Yes, I'm certain, given the charges.
      • Joker_vD 3y ago
        And if you break the window of the bakery and steal a loaf of bread, you get 5 years of bagne because that's what "breaking" part automatically entails, never mind the pettiness of the theft itself. I think a story like that would make an interesting starting point of a book.
        • solardev 3y ago
          And they'll add 14 years if you try to run. Gotta keep you looking down...
    • alistairSH 3y ago
      Who would even think that would be illegal Anybody who hunts should know the laws around tracking and recovering game animals.
      • IncreasePosts 3y ago
        Nothing in the article says the drone operator was a hunter
        • ceejayoz 3y ago
          Their public Instagram posts make it pretty clear. https://www.instagram.com/p/CwMTdvNOuoB/ https://www.instagram.com/p/CwMTdvNOuoB/
          • nickthegreek 3y ago
            I was initially giving this drone operator the benefit of the doubt, but that instagram post literally has #dronedeerrecovery on it.
      • solardev 3y ago
        That's easier said than done. Do you know your state's entire vehicle code by heart when you drive? Do you know every environmental and wildlife law when you go on a hike? Do you know every state's tax laws when you do business online? Our legal system is incomprehensibly complex, and the average person stands zero chance of "knowing" all of its nuances. For every subject matter of law, there are specialized lawyers who spend their lives studying and practicing just that one little sphere. Now, maybe the context is that there is something obviously illegal and commonly understood about recovering game at night that hunters know and I don't...? Is there?
        • s1artibartfast 3y ago
          Do you have a workable alternative to a legal system that applies the laws as written, and not just against clearly intentional lawbreaking? You dont need to know the entire vehicle code for driving or hiking, but you are in fact responsible for understanding the parts relevant to the actions you are personally engaging in. But to your point, yes, a lot of this is common knowledge amongst hunters.
    • seabass-labrax 3y ago
      I had the same initial reaction as you, but the nuance here is that Mr. Wingenroth runs a commercial company which specifically advertises UAV flights to hunters for the purpose of 'deer recovery'. So this is not merely a case of putting a wild animal out of its misery, but also one in which the UAV pilot was intending to render services to hunters - it just so happened that the hunters in this event were undercover agents. Therefore, as the prosecution's argument went, Mr. Wingenroth should have known the local rules about hunting at night regardless of whether the hunters were agents or not.
      • solardev 3y ago
        Even if he wasn't approached by undercover agents, why is using a drone to recover deer illegal...? Is it even...? I'm not sure if 1) there is a difference (or should be) between hunting and recovery or 2) if it matters if it's night or 3) if it matters if it's electronically aided or not or 4) if it matters whether it's a spotlight used for mesmerization or a drone with minimal lights (or maybe IR)... Even the judge in this case seemed to believe the laws were confusing and ambiguous and wanted the legislature to clean them up. In that case, I wish they'd just let the man go (and stop enforcing these laws until they're cleaned up and rewritten). --------- Maybe there is some unspoken implication here that Mr. Wingenroth clearly knew this was an illegal act, offered his services deceptively somehow (i.e. maybe drone recovery is legal but drone hunting isn't?), but then why would he advertise such services online, and then why would they nail him for recovery instead of hunting? It just doesn't really make sense. What am I missing?
        • HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
          > why is using a drone to recover deer illegal I don't know whether it is or not, or why, but harassing wildlife and livestock is certainly illegal and as someone who's had a drone flying over his herd of horses, I can assure you that it's for good reason. > difference (or should be) between hunting and recovery or 2) if it matters if it's night Are you seriously asking why hunting at night might be illegal? If it helps, I can tell you about my sister-in-law whose horse was shot and killed at dusk. "I thought it was a big deer."
    • s1artibartfast 3y ago
      > Why are we spending tax dollars on something like this? You arent, hunters are. For the most part, hunting law enforcement, ecological work, and wildlife science are funded directly from hunting permits. Whether this is a good law or not is open to debate. There is a vast amount of hunting laws that restrict actions that are not sporting, sustainable, or have potential for abuse. I imagine the argument is that there is no viable way to discern hunting with drones from recovery with drones, so their use is prohibited entirely.
  • archontes 3y ago
    "The four charges against Wingenroth stemmed from a December sting operation by the Pennsylvania Game Commission in which an officer called Wingenroth pretending to be a hunter who had wounded a deer and needed help recovering it." "Entrapment is a complete defense to a criminal charge, on the theory that 'Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute.'" - Justice.gov The only way this doesn't look like entrapment to me is if the agent called the man and said, "Hey I wounded a deer, can you help?" and the man replied, "I'll use my drone!" Even then, I seriously wonder how this doesn't stray into the territory of implanting the disposition to commit said crime.
    • arrosenberg 3y ago
      You are misunderstanding entrapment the way people always misunderstand it. If you offer a service (on the low) to do something illegal, and law enforcement calls you pretending to be a legitimate user of your service, that is not entrapment. Entrapment is when law enforcement coerces you into taking an illegal action that you otherwise would not have taken. I.E. A federal agent telling you that if you don't walk into that bank and rob it, they will arrest you for (a planted) firearms possession. This case is about whether the defendants actions actually were illegal, because PA law seems ambiguous about it.
      • IncreasePosts 3y ago
        Was the drone operator offering a drone hunting service or just a dude with a drone that they called?
        • arrosenberg 3y ago
          Based on his Instagram, this is a regular service he offers for deer recovery. It doesn't really matter though, it's the operators responsibility to know the law. If you are going to operate a drone for the purposes of hunting, common sense would dictate Googling the legality of doing so, since both airspace and hunting are generally heavily regulated. Upon finding ambiguity, I would probably opt not to do that kind of work or accept the potential for consequences.
• Gunax 3y ago
  Given that this drone was apparently designed for game recovery, I think it's easy to show he had prior intent.
• kristjansson 3y ago
  Gotta be something you wouldn't have done otherwise; clearly this doesn't meet that standard. (obligatory I Am Not A Lawyer)