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

snap-

If the highest skilled software engineers in the world invented a program that's sole purpose was to mimic the US justice system it would never even come close to replicating its stupidity and ignorance.

The bears should be put in prison for trespassing

[QUOTE=Dark-Energy;31962704]If the highest skilled software engineers in the world invented a program that's sole purpose was to mimic the US justice system it would never even come close to replicating its stupidity and ignorance.[/QUOTE] you realize if you shoot a guy you're still going to court right even if he's going to slit your daughter's throat you go to court why is this any different

[quote] including Idaho's republican governor Butch Otter[/quote] Oh well good, the governor can just pardon him

[QUOTE=Dark-Energy;31962704]If the highest skilled software engineers in the world invented a program that's sole purpose was to mimic the US justice system it would never even come close to replicating its stupidity and ignorance.[/QUOTE] You're not just a moron. You're [I]designed [/I]to be a moron...

Had the bear attacked one of his children, it would have been killed by animal control, given they could find it. I don't see what was wrong here, he was just speeding up the inevitable.

I feel sorry for the bear, yet, when I read the title, I was like, WAT

The whole point of court is to determine if the events that transpired are illegal. The federal officers probably got a statement saying an endangered species was shot dead by someone. If you don't have a system that checks everyone into court on even seemingly minor charges, innocent people will be jailed, and guilty people will not be.

[QUOTE=Contag;31961613]There exist some mechanisms within our common law system, I'm not sure about the US.[/QUOTE] The United States is a bastion of heavy bureaucratic red tape.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;31953332]Sometimes courts don't care about the why, only the what.[/QUOTE] Courts always care about the why. Jurors have no obligation to uphold the law. They are completely withing their rights to screw over an entire trial by voting against the evidence for any reason. This is by design.

[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;31963071]Oh well good, the governor can just pardon him[/QUOTE] I'm not too sure, these are federal charges. I think that supersedes the state. [editline]26th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;31961445]Shoot off to the side of the bear? Not that in a situation like that I'd worry about the bear.[/QUOTE] Shooting up into the air is illegal because what goes up must come down - sometimes an another person a mile away.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;31959729]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] I hope none of the prosecuters/jury are PETA members then. He'd be given the death sentence.

I wonder what Stephen Colbert is gonna have to say about this...

[QUOTE=BLOODGA$M;31965568]I wonder what Stephen Colbert is gonna have to say about this...[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.pitch.com/imager/claire-there-are-bears-in-missouri/b/original/2567469/25f4/colbert_bears_threatdown.jpg[/img]

when news stories (sensationalist in nature) say "could face (x) years" or "(x) dollar fine" they are usually citing the maximum penalty. In any case, our endangered species program is severely fucked up in America, in this case, it's obvious why but in other cases such as an endangered species on your property which you can not "disturb" it actually encourages people to shoot and bury the animal as opposed to let it be because they don't want to have to deal with the regulations and penalties. I don't know what the solution to the endangered animal problem (although I do know it's blown completely out of proportion for most species), all I could come up with is: How about we let some nice animal activists kidnap them and give them free food and sex for life or something. All I do know, is our current laws are broken.

[QUOTE=Profanwolf;31953854]You're not funny, just dumb. Thought he was being sarcastic :suicide:[/QUOTE] wtf?

[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]Thats what I was going to say. But sometimes it scares them off and they come back later.

People in this thread don't seem to get that bears aren't people. A warning shot isn't gonna do shit, because bears don't fucking know what guns are. They don't understand the principle of using a controlled explosion to propel a chunk of heavy metal at high velocity to kill something. As far as the bear is concerned, the loud bang by itself is probably how humans say "fight me motherfucker!", and if the bear is big enough compared to the human, and especially if there's more than one bear against a single grown human, it'll probably be thinking something like "oh you dumb shit, this is gonna be too easy" But like any critter with a developed brain, bears know damn well what death is. And when a human makes a loud bang followed by the bear next to you getting flicked off like a fucking lightswitch, that's going to elicit some rather different thoughs. Some thoughts along the lines of "Oh fuck, this ain't gonna work!". Well probably. But that's really all you can hope for in that situation. (note that I am not a qualified animal psychologist)

[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] In that situation, your first instinct is to shoot where you know you can hit it.

[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] There's no such thing as shooting to wound.

[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;31953304]This is unbearable. You know that this guy is likely going to loose, or still have to pay some stupid fine.[/QUOTE] He's most likely going to get charged but pardoned for acting under forgiving circumstances. That's a fairly normal procedure. Since he did commit a crime and only a court can essentially pardon him from it. Essentially the state has to charge him, since he did commit a crime. If they did not, it would weaken the position of the law. But the law forsees similar circumstances and defense of a person (his children) is one of them. On top of that it will be argued that since it was the fate of his kids, the man essentially was not in a mental state to tell the amount of defense necessary. Which once more makes his position even stronger. So tl;dr. Should he be charged - absolutely yes Should he be convicted of the crime - aboslutely no, not even partially. - depending on the circumstances Should he be pardoned in regard towards pardoning exceptions the law forsees - absolutely.- depending on the circumstances

[QUOTE=Eluveitie;31953313]That's fucking stupid.[/QUOTE]Its america. What do you expect? They don't give a shit about your family values. They'll do whatever they have to in order to make a buck. Seriously, this is fucking disgusting. Man saves his children and he gets punished for it. In all honesty, fuck society and its bullshit laws. I'd rather chance it with the bears. I hope the best for this man.

[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 don't blame him for killing it. Grizzlies don't fire warning shots.

[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] You really shouldn't ever fire a gun into the air...Life isn't the Source engine, bullets aren't hitscan traces that continue forever in one direction and there's no skybox that makes them disappear when they hit it. Though it sounds a bit unlikely (and admittedly doesn't happen often), people have been seriously injured or even killed by random sky bullets because some guys don't seem to understand this.

Couldn't the governor issue a pardon? Or is it only the President that's allowed to do that?

This is fucking ridiculous

Fucking retarded. what if one of the kids got mauled?