Man could face a year in prison and $50,000 fine for protecting his children from grizzly bears - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Jeremy Hill of Idaho is facing a trial, after he shot and killed a grizzly bear that came into his yard. Hill claims that he came into the yard where his children were playing to find three grizzly bears had entered the property. He shot one of the bears, killing it and scaring the others away. Hill reported the incident to the state authorities, who did not express concern. But federal authorities have charged Hill with killing an endangered species. The case has stoked passions has attracted many supporters, including Idaho's republican governor Butch Otter. If convicted, Hill could face a year in prison or a $50,000 fine. Hill's trial is scheduled to begin on October 4th.[/QUOTE] Source: [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/25/jeremy-hill-grizzly-bear-shooting_n_936369.html?ncid=webmail15[/url]

But all he wanted was a pic-a-nic basket. [img]http://images.pictureshunt.com/pics/y/yogi_bear-5308.jpg[/img]

This is unbearable. You know that this guy is likely going to loose, or still have to pay some stupid fine.

That's fucking stupid.

We have far too many stupid court cases in this country. This is one of them. It's not like the guy went out of his way to hunt the bear down.

Retarded.

If killing the bear was lawful, and he had a good reason (from my superficial understanding, it seems so) then he should win, and be found innocent. Why bother having a justice system otherwise?

[QUOTE=Contag;31953326]If killing the bear was lawful, and he had a good reason (from my superficial understanding, it seems so) then he should win, and be found innocent. Why bother having a justice system otherwise?[/QUOTE] Sometimes courts don't care about the why, only the what.

He was defending his home and his children, what's wrong with that? Whoever's pressing charges should try to fend off a grizzly bear with just words, and see where it gets them. If there were a bunch of dangerous animals on my property, I wouldn't just sit by and let them eat my children; i'd take action and scare them off, and if firing a gun was the best option so be it! Then again he probably shouldn't have shot to kill. Just shooting it in the paw woulda been sufficient, maybe even just firing the gun into the air as a warning shot coulda scared them off.

[QUOTE=ironman17;31953350]He was defending his home and his children, what's wrong with that? Whoever's pressing charges should try to fend off a grizzly bear with just words, and see where it gets them. If there were a bunch of dangerous animals on my property, I wouldn't just sit by and let them eat my children; i'd take action and scare them off, and if firing a gun was the best option so be it! Then again he probably shouldn't have shot to kill. Just shooting it in the paw woulda been sufficient, maybe even just firing the gun into the air as a warning shot coulda scared them off.[/QUOTE] It doesn't say whether or not he fired a warning shot but that doesn't always scare the animals away, especially Grizzly Bears, but when you shoot a wild animal, always shoot to kill never to wound. If you wound it, it may linger for weeks unable to feed itself properly, especially a Bear which depends on it's store of fat to survive the winter. This guy did everything right and now those worthless little shits are going to punish him for it, does the Fed actually do anything useful at all?

I'm confident that the legal system will show that he is innocent.

Huh, so I guess he was fully in the right, then? I was thinking that he did most of it right but messed up a bit by killing the bear, but I guess the killing part was merciful compared to the prospect of a slower death...

Also, shooting to wound an animal will almost always agitate it, especially something like a bear, he could've gotten his kids and himself killed if he hadn't shot to kill.

even if it was the last animal of the entire species it was still justified if he thought his kids were in danger

[QUOTE=Penguiin;31953753]even if it was the last animal of the entire species it was still justified if he thought his kids were in danger[/QUOTE] You're not funny, just dumb. Thought he was being sarcastic :suicide:

[QUOTE=Profanwolf;31953854]You're not funny, just dumb.[/QUOTE] uhh he's right

So if a human trespasses you can shoot them. If its a bear oh hell no you better not shoot them.

Things like this bother me, because if it had been the other way around, everyone would defend the bear. What if 3 men had entered the bear's territory? The bear would have defended it's children and no org would complain. The bear would not be punished or destroyed.it was doing it's job, just as this man was doing his job. It is a man's job to protect his family and his children. The bear should not have entered his territory.

what else u suposed to use ur gun for anyway

[QUOTE=Zeke129;31953909]uhh he's right[/QUOTE] Yeah but why can't it work the other way around. Why when hunters go into forest with guns and one of them gets killed by a bear do humans insist on grouping together and killing the bear responsible?

If he does end up losing (which, to be honest he probably will in such a distorted legal system) a fund should be set up to help this guy pay the fine. Even if everyone just donated $1, it shouldn't be too hard to help this guy out.

[QUOTE=Miskav;31953738]Also, shooting to wound an animal will almost always agitate it, especially something like a bear, he could've gotten his kids and himself killed if he hadn't shot to kill.[/QUOTE] As my father says, "Shooting it is just gonna piss it off" [editline]26th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Cutts;31954047]If he does end up losing (which, to be honest he probably will in such a distorted legal system) a fund should be set up to help this guy pay the fine. Even if everyone just donated $1, it shouldn't be too hard to help this guy out.[/QUOTE] I'd donate to that. Hell, I'd donate $2.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;31953909]uhh he's right[/QUOTE] I thought he was being sarcastic :saddowns:

"Idaho" Of course

[QUOTE=Contag;31953326]If killing the bear was lawful, and he had a good reason (from my superficial understanding, it seems so) then he should win, and be found innocent. Why bother having a justice system otherwise?[/QUOTE] Quoted for truth.

But was the bear just wandering around the yard or actually trying to kill the children?

[QUOTE=Carne;31954396]But was the bear just wandering around the yard or actually trying to kill the children?[/QUOTE] Better safe than sorry either way.

It was going to kill the pigs the children were raising. If the cubs got anywhere near the kids, the mother would likely panic and attack them. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/DWyBs.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;31954243] I'd donate to that. Hell, I'd donate $2.[/QUOTE] you my friend are the pinnacle of human kindness

Don't you just love it when people treat the law as 100% black and white? This is fucking stupid, putting a man defending his children on the same level as someone that poaches bears for a living.