[marktwain]

The legal standard to kill grizzly bears in defense of self and others is not as high as killing humans in defense of self and others.

[quilterdebbie]

Good!

[nathanbedford]

The article is confusing because it is inconsistent.

In one breath it says:

the government must prove the defender did not believe they were threatened or that others were in imminent danger by the bear.

That places the burden of proof on the state. But in the next breath the article says:

The person making the claim does not have to show they were objectively threatened. They need to show they believed they and/or others were in imminent danger.

This places the burden on the defendant.

It is unfortunately that I do not have access to case because this is not a quibble over who has the burden of proof, this is a fundamental issue.

[FLT-bird]

To me, the fact that they kept coming back onto his property and had fed on his livestock shows they were very much a threat to him and his family members. These bears were habituated to coming onto his property and feeding. It was totally reasonable for him to fear they would come onto his property at any time in the future and view his children as their next meal.

Put that in front of a jury and there’s no way the government gets a conviction.

[Deaf Smith]

I just checked my Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition and “misspoke” is not there.

Why would the appeals court use such word in a legal document?

[AndyJackson]

Dan Calvert Wallen shot three grizzly bears on his family property in Ferndale, Montana, with a banged-up .22 rimfire rifle

Pejoratives about the rifle aside, I am just guessing that the bears survived this just fine and in fact using a .22 on a Grizzly is sort of a last resort because it's more likely just to piss off the bear and assure your demise. In this case they were young.

[2111USMC]

It takes big brass ones to go after three grizz with just a .22. I wonder how many shots he had to fire.

[Big Red Badger]

Only Fact I see is;
‘A Banged Up ‘.22 Rimfire RIFLE.’
.
A Cooey Bolt Action like Bella Twin ?

[lowbridge]

“The standard is different and lower than the standard to be used for self-defense against humans.”

Whoever thought of having the right to arm bears enshrined in the constitution is an idiot. 😀

[Lurker]

“ Because the charges were misdemeanors, with a maximum penalty of six months in jail and/or restitution for the bears, a jury trial was not allowed. In the bench trial, Wallen was found guilty by Magistrate Judge Jeremiah Lynch, sentenced to three years of probation, and $15,000 in restitution.”

The Judge was wrong. The Constitution is quite clear that on any matter of controversy over $20 the right to a jury is preserved.

L

[Opinionated Blowhard]

What he says is all well and good, but the legal standard for most people is to kiss your a__ goodbye because you aren’t going to have a powerful gun, and you aren’t going to be able to win a fight or run fast enough.

[saleman]

It’s probably just me....

How did the Fish and Game find out about this “case”?

If I feel threatened by wildlife, wildlife is dead. To bring anyone else into it is stupid at best. Your right to silence is ingrained in the Constitution.