Man could face a year in prison and $50,000 fine for protecting his children from grizzly bears
87 replies, posted
To be fair, he could've contacted a service who is qualified to deal with this sort of stuff.
Regardless, this is just silly.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;31954920]To be fair, he could've contacted a service who is qualified to deal with this sort of stuff.
Regardless, this is just silly.[/QUOTE]
Not enough time. His kids could have been mauled or killed by time they got to his house.
now that's fucking dumb.
What the fuck is this shit.
[editline]26th August 2011[/editline]
I mean, like, seriously. I am out of words. This is fucking bullshit.
[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]
Shooting into the air is illegal.
[QUOTE=sami-elite;31955077]Shooting into the air is illegal.[/QUOTE]
Wonder if he would have gotten at least a lesser fine...
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;31953332]Sometimes courts don't care about the why, only the what.[/QUOTE]
Then the courts should recognize that the law needs to change and give him a slap on the wrist.
[editline]27th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=trent_roolz alt;31954637]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.[/QUOTE]
The federal department that is prosecuting him is probably overworked and understaffed, [I]and[/I] they are probably forced to have a quota of 'people tried for bear poaching' each financial year.
Or they lose their jobs.
[QUOTE=Contag;31955420]Then the courts should recognize that the law needs to change and give him a slap on the wrist.
[/QUOTE]
To say "Easier said than done" would be a gross understatement.
[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;31953993]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.[/QUOTE]You stole my speech. :smith:
Anyway, excellent points.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;31953332]Sometimes courts don't care about the why, only the what.[/QUOTE]
no in the case of killing an endangered species the why is very important. it determines how to punish the offender. if someone didnt know the animal was endangered he would be given a significantly easier punishment than someone who knowingly went out hunting it.
since this was in self defense he should get off easy. no court of law expects a man to let his children die to preserve an endangered animal.
[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]
I've killed much smaller less resilient animals while hunting and if bears are anything like boars then shooting without killing will just cause it to charge the nearest living thing
Should've fired a warning shot first, if that doesn't scare them off then you're allowed to shoot to kill.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;31959952]Should've fired a warning shot first, if that doesn't scare them off then you're allowed to shoot to kill.[/QUOTE]
a warning shot could spook the bears and cause them to charge. bears(like most dangerous animals) are incredibly unpredictable when under stress. it could cause them to run, or it could just cause them to go crazy.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;31959952]Should've fired a warning shot first, if that doesn't scare them off then you're allowed to shoot to kill.[/QUOTE]
did you even read my post
I'd like to think people as heartless as this don't exist, and that there's just a big misunderstanding... but I know it's not true. Goddammit, I don't care if it was the last of its species, the children do not deserve to die for the life of a single endangered animal, and anyone who believes otherwise is human scum.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;31959729]no in the case of killing an endangered species [b]the why[/b] is very important. it determines how to punish the offender.[/QUOTE]
I think this should apply in the case of a murder as well.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;31954920]To be fair, he could've contacted a service who is qualified to deal with this sort of stuff.
Regardless, this is just silly.[/QUOTE]
Yeah sitting on hold listening to shitty music while there are three grizzly bears in your yard near your kids, what was this guy thinking not doing that
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;31960592]I think this should apply in the case of a murder as well.[/QUOTE]
it does
the what the difference is between intentional manslaughter, unintentional manslaughter, and 1st degree murder.
the fuck is with all these people saying you should fire warning shots?
I live in the mountains of BC and i've seen more than enough grizzly bears while hunting as well as just going for a hike on some trails, and most everybody around here who hunts has been taught to shoot to kill if you feel like you're in danger. Firing a warning shot or just trying to wound any dangerous animal in the wild could easily get yourself mauled to death. In the case of a grizzly bear, these are 900 pound animals that can stand 7 feet tall, i doubt you'd want to have that charging at you and / or your family
[QUOTE=sami-elite;31955077]Shooting into the air is illegal.[/QUOTE]
Shoot off to the side of the bear? Not that in a situation like that I'd worry about the bear.
I live in Idaho, and I am related to him.
[quote]An account of the incident, which accompanied the plea for financial support, said Hill saw three bears attacking the pen that contained the children’s 4-H pigs.
“Not being able to see the other four children playing basketball, Jeremy and Rachel (his wife) were instantly afraid for their children’s lives. Jeremy yelled at the bears and called for his children.
"After receiving no immediate response from his children Jeremy gave the baby to Rachel, and retrieved his daughter’s .270 rifle from the laundry room. Jeremy then went out onto the front porch yelling for his children.
"Hearing no response and in fear that his children were in serious danger, Jeremy shot the closest bear about 40 yards away. After the shot the two other grizzly bears ran into the garden and yard and into the timber.
"As this happened, Rachel reported that the children had made it into the house safely.”
Hill shot the bear a second time and a third time when it wouldn’t die, according to the account. His family was no longer threatened at this point since they were in the house.
Federal prosecutors began getting tougher about hunters shooting grizzlies and claiming self defense in Wyoming in the 1990s. Many bears that were shot in the back, but hunters would claim the animals were threatening them.
Read more: [url]http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2011/08/24/rockybarker/grizzly_killing_charges_get_boundary_county_folks_charged#ixzz1WBPYZQY0[/url][/quote]
This changes things if true IMO.
Not really. Would you want a wounded grizzly bear wandering around in the woods suffering more than it would have been if you killed it right away?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;31955474]To say "Easier said than done" would be a gross understatement.[/QUOTE]
There exist some mechanisms within our common law system, I'm not sure about the US.
What the hell? He shot a bear from 40 yards away and he didn't even SEE them near his kids? And he had to use his daughter's rifle, which is in the laundry room?
I bet those pigs shit themselves when they saw the bears...more than usual I mean.
[img]http://images3.cpcache.com/product/181004253v5_480x480_Front_Color-White.jpg[/img]
So, what happens then?
[QUOTE=FalcoLombardi;31954287]"Idaho"
Of course[/QUOTE]
nah, you da ho
Yeah, endangered species. Did they want the kids to be eaten? Think of the children!
[QUOTE=Kinversulath;31961523]This changes things if true IMO.[/QUOTE]
Sounds like he was trying to put the bear out of it's misery, rather than just leave it to suffer
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
