Posted on 04/10/2015 3:59:47 AM PDT by marktwain
In this case in Montana, a man, Dan Calvert Wallen, who shot three grizzly bears who were repeatedly raiding his property and killing his chickens, was denied a trial by jury, and convicted by the judge of illegally "taking" an unlawful species. The penalty for each offense is up to six months in jail and a $25,000 fine.
What is clear to anyone that studies bear problems, is that these were problem bears, and would have to be dealt with sooner or later. The Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks service had attempted to trap the bears but had failed to do so.
Once bears have become habituated to humans, and associate them with food, they can no longer be trusted. It is only a matter of time until a hungry bear wonders what that weak, slow, and obviously ineffectual two legged critter might taste like, or needs to be shown its proper place in the pecking order. Either way results in a serious bear/human conflict. The essence of the above reality has been put into a motto of wildlife managers: a fed bear is a dead bear.
In the case in Montana, the shooter killed all three bears with a .22 rifle. From dailyinterlake.com:
Wallen shot the grizzly bears at his home in Ferndale in May 2014. After being denied a request for a trial by jury, Wallen went to trial March 10.Many people do not realize how deadly a .22 is. Many head of big game has been killed with the .22 long rifle cartridge. It is a favorite of both subsistence hunters and poachers, who are often the same person. But the "bullet proof" or at least "bullet resistant" capabilities of bears has been hyped to the thousand yard line and beyond. The shooter, Wallen, said that he shot to scare the bears away. At least one of the bears was hit in the hind quarter. I wonder if he thought that the .22 would not cause them serious damage.
He will be sentenced May 12 in Missoula.
Court documents say Wallen shot three grizzly bears with a .22 rifle on May 27, 2014, but only one dead bear was found that day. The other bears were found on May 28 and June 4 near Wallens home.
In his testimony, Wallen described feeling threatened by all three bears and remembered physically shaking after the bears were gone, court documents say. During an earlier interview during the investigation, Wallen signed an affidavit stating that he was fearful for himself and his family.
However, discrepancies in his accounts of the incident caused the court to find lack of credibility in Wallens statements, court records say.
Ninth Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instruction 5.6 (2010). To Establish that Wallen acted "knowingly," the government was only required to prove that Wallen knowingly "shot an animal which turned out to be a grizzly bear," not that "he knew he was shooting a grizzly bear at the time he pulled the trigger."It may be that a "request for a jury trial" is not sufficient in federal court. Perhaps a "demand for a jury trial" is required. I hope that lawyers who read this will comment on it and educate us. Could if be that the judge "persuaded" Mr. Wallen that he really did not want a jury trial? It seems likely that everyone in the area knew about these problem bears and their predations.
When’s judge and bureaucrat season?
Anyone know the bag limit?
Did he plead guilty?
One is not denied a trial by jury.
Germany had the ‘problem-bear’ episode around 2006. This was the first bear reported within Germany in around 150 years. For six weeks, he was an acceptable bear, then farmers started to complain over him killing some sheep and chickens. Then he got problem-bear status where a bunch of Finn bear hunters were hired to tranquilize and recover him. The brief four weeks of Finn hunting was worthy of a 300-page book. In the end, the Finns gave up and the Bavarian government approved full-scale hunting of the bear, and about eight hours into the hunt...he was found and killed.
“What is clear to anyone that studies bear problems, is that these were problem bears, and would have to be dealt with sooner or later.”
What is clear to any bureaucrat who studies armed patriot problems, is that these were problem patriots, and would have to be dealt with sooner or later.
Heck I wold have to think twice about going after one with the Ruger Redhawk .44.
Sounds like a problem judge, to me.
Was his house bear proof?
Sixth Amendment violation?
I really wish someone would explain this case. Like you, I thought that a trial by jury was always citizen's right.
Could it be that he broke a "regulation" and not a "law"? It shouldn't make any difference, but in today's America...
Shoot, shovel and shut up.
It is not surprising to kill a 150 pound cub with a .22
Bingo.
First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Sixth Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . .
Several florists and bakers would have said one is not denied the right to the free exercise of religion. This is not the United States of our youth. The "Living Constitution" means what liberals want it to mean, and some animals are more equal than others in this brave new world.
One would think so, given the plain language of the sixth amendment. But SCOTUS has construed the word "all" to mean "all with a possible penalty greater than 6 months."
Doesn’t sound credible to me either. Sounds like he just decided to kill himself some bears.
12 months and $65k...
Thank you for the education. I thought the six month rule only applied to the states, and not all used it.
Now that you mention it, they can also pile as many “six month charges” into the trial as they want, correct?
So in this case, the fellow could go to jail for as much as a year and a half, and be fined $75,000. Is that correct?
All for doing something that his neighbors likely applauded him for.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.