Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 08/20/2025 3:56:44 AM PDT by marktwain
In 1975, when grizzly bears in the lower 48 states were regulated as “threatened” by the federal Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior, the standard required to use deadly force against them, in defense of self and others, was unclear. In 2017 and 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit created a binding precedent that clarified the standard to be used when a person claimed defense of self and/or others against grizzly bears in the lower 48 states.
The standard is different and lower than the standard to be used for self-defense against humans.
From the opinion by the Ninth Circuit issued in 2017, bold added:
“We hold the ‘good faith belief’ defense for a prosecution under 16 U.S.C. § 1540 is governed by a subjective, rather than an objective, standard, and is satisfied when a defendant actually, even if unreasonably, believes his actions are necessary to protect himself or others from perceived danger from a grizzly bear. Because the district court applied an objective standard, we vacate Wallen’s conviction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
The bears had killed most of his chickens. He had chased the three adolescent bears from his property with a truck, but the bears returned. Wallen pleaded not guilty and asked for a jury trial. 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Good!
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.
The defendant has to make the claim they believed they were in imminent danger, in order to claim defense of self and others.
To convict the defendant, the government has to disprove the claim.
No. The defendant merely has the burden of going forward with his affirmative defense to place the matter at issue. This can be him merely testifying that he was afraid for his life and safety. The ultimate burden rests with the state to disprove this. This is the same in any self defense case.
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.
The Court ruled that because this was a misdemeanor, with only a potential six month sentence and $25,000 fine, it was a “petty offence”, therefore there was no right to a jury trial.
And that right there is what’s wrong.
6 months in jail? $25K? No right to be judged by a jury of one’s peers?
Arbitrary removal of rights! Any sentence that includes jail time should get a jury.
Why would the appeals court use such word in a legal document?
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.
“ 6 months in jail? $25K? No right to be judged by a jury of one’s peers?”
Six months and one day later, the judge would be getting a visit.
The bicycle shop misspoked my wheel and I had a bad accident.
It takes big brass ones to go after three grizz with just a .22. I wonder how many shots he had to fire.
It's important to note that some jurisdictions have slight variations. In a few places, the defendant might have to prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not), but the predominant rule, especially in the U.S.is that the prosecution bears the final burden to disprove self-defense once it's properly raised.
That is why I regretted not having access to the case.
Only Fact I see is;
‘A Banged Up ‘.22 Rimfire RIFLE.’
.
A Cooey Bolt Action like Bella Twin ?
How does your post #12 relate to this thread?
See post #9
If there is a grizzly near me, I am in imminent danger.
“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. 😀
“ 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
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.