If the bear was on the other side of the Moose carcass, and not moving toward the hunter, the jury verdict seems understandable.
1 posted on
05/31/2010 5:52:39 AM PDT by
marktwain
To: marktwain
"You can't kill wildlife based on an undemonstrated fear of an unrealistic threat."
It's a damn Griz!!! Any threat is realistic with a Griz on a trail!
To: marktwain
It’s illegal to poach the King’s animals.
3 posted on
05/31/2010 6:03:46 AM PDT by
DaveArk
To: marktwain
Sounds like Mr. Bear was already chowin' down.
Don't act like you're going to interrupt his meal and what's the problem?
4 posted on
05/31/2010 6:03:56 AM PDT by
OKSooner
("Hey - get your own dirt.")
To: marktwain
Maybe.
But you do understand that the Left is trying to make people as helpless before wildlife as they are before criminals.
In the not-too-distant future, the prosecution will be claiming, “Well, yes, the grizzly did charge the defendant. The grizzly did knock him down and bit his foot off. He clawed his scalp off. But the defendant had no reason to believe that these attacks were a threat on his life, because people have survived such injuries. I repeat, someone being attacked by a grizzly can only employ lethal force if that grizzly is biting the neck of the victim.”
Leftists are trying to take over MT. Their toehold for their totalitarianism is the national parks and any other “public land” that enables them to set up their autocracies.
To: marktwain
Westmoreland shot the animal at 40 yards after he encountered it feeding on a moose carcass. The animal died on the other side of the moose from Westmoreland and without charging. Not much self defense at that range or situation.
What was he defending against?
First requirement, except under Castle Doctrine, is to try to disengage. The bear did not charge, it kept eating the carcass. Westmoreland should have just walked away.
7 posted on
05/31/2010 6:06:06 AM PDT by
MindBender26
(Prezdet Obama is what you get when you let the O.J. jury select a president !)
To: marktwain
The typical bear at the zoo poses a greater threat than the bear in this case.
Hate to say it, but the verdict sounds 100% correct. A yahoo out looking to shoot an animal for kicks.
10 posted on
05/31/2010 6:26:46 AM PDT by
sbMKE
To: marktwain
It is people like this who is going to ruin it for everybody else who use caution. He should have backed off the bear and walked away.
I take a side arm with me when I hike in the desert. If I come across a bunch of illegals I just turn and walk away.
There was an incident where a guy was hiking and a illegal shoved a gun in his face and told him to leave.
11 posted on
05/31/2010 6:31:15 AM PDT by
waxer1
( "The Bible is the rock on which our republic rests." -Andrew Jackson)
To: marktwain
"If the bear was on the other side of the Moose carcass, and not moving toward the hunter, the jury verdict seems understandable."
Yep. I am, however, reminded of a man in our neck of the woods who was similarly charged after lining up a shot from his bedroom window, and killing a bear while it rummaged through his trash cans. What the reporting omitted was that dozens of school children were walking to bus stops that morning, unaware of the animal's presence in the neighborhood; dozens of children carrying backpacks filled with "Old Ephraim's" favorite goodies. So, it calls to question does what constitute a perceived threat in human-to-human encounters apply in human-to-bear encounters? I dunno...but given a bear's power, speed, and belligerent nature when food's involved, I'd say equating the two would be problematic.
12 posted on
05/31/2010 6:47:19 AM PDT by
PowderMonkey
(Will work for ammo)
To: marktwain
If the bear was on the other side of the Moose carcass, and not moving toward the hunter, the jury verdict seems understandable. Agreed, if that was truly the case. It's the difference between a truly life threatening situation and the privilege of seeing one of these monsters in it's natural habitat, a wonder that people specifically travel to the park to see.
13 posted on
05/31/2010 6:48:33 AM PDT by
Caipirabob
( Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
To: marktwain
Seems the jury might be right on this one. If the Grizz was on his side of the meal and had made efforts to attack him, I could see self-defense, but if the Grizz was in place at his meal and no other signs of attack were present it seems someone shot a Grizz just to do it.
16 posted on
05/31/2010 7:05:26 AM PDT by
CodeToad
To: marktwain
City folks don’t seem to understand grizzlies are not black bears, I have had black bears make fake charges and grunt when encountered, I slowly backed away, no problem, usually they just run with an amazing speed in the other direction. Grizzly bears do not warn, 40 yards is nothing, it would be on you in seconds, if he took a step towards me, I would fear for my life. Grizzlies to black bears, like pit bulls to poodles.
22 posted on
05/31/2010 7:25:14 AM PDT by
MontanaBeth
(Miles to go...)
To: marktwain
23 posted on
05/31/2010 7:52:14 AM PDT by
LomanBill
(Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
To: marktwain
I try to avoid hiking anywhere grizzlies are. I also don’t like to swim with sharks or drive into Memphis, TN.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson