This is pretty obvious.
The bull was aggressive, causing an accident.
When the deputies arrived, it was still being aggressive, charging at emergency responders and likely the deputies. When people’s lives are at risk, those in the Subaru, LEOs do not screw around with aggressive and dangerous animals.
Then the rancher shows up and doesn’t want them to shoot his bull. In that situation he is not really different than a large dog owner whose animal is threatening people.
Just FYI, cows and bulls kill on average 20 Americans a year. You do not screw around with an aggressive bull.
It was open range.
The bull had legal right to be there.
If they didn’t want him there they have to erect a fence to keep him off the road.
A lot of people don’t get that.
Definitely NOT supported by the information given.
The incident began when a Subaru station wagon crashed into a bull on US 95 north of Council at about 6:45 p.m.
This is after not only sunset (5:31PM) but last light at 6:02PM source for sunset time
Dark critter, dark highway, open range, right place, wrong time.
No aggression on the part of the bull needed to have the wreck.
Afterward, the animal may act in self-defense--it has been hurt it and may well respond to the presence of additional people, noises, flashing lights, or efforts to drive it off with defensive acts (seen as aggression by those who just got there).
Without knowing how badly the bull was injured and the people involved, there are several possible scenarios, from an altercation resulting from the injury to the animal to a possible dispute over 'putting it down' to a pissing contest between deputies and the rancher.
If people were shot and killed, I would say the matter could have been handled better.
The bull was aggressive, causing an accident.
_________________________
Yep, pretty obvious; Open Range, Bull has right of way, stock owner not liable.
And that's justification for putting five bullets into him?