Grizzly shooter garners support

[Feuer Frei!]

A man charged with unlawfully shooting and killing a grizzly bear had so many supporters at his arraignment Tuesday in federal court that the judge had to move the hearing to a larger courtroom. Even there, every seat was taken as his family, friends and neighbors, young and old, squeezed in.


Jeremy M. Hill, 33, pleaded not guilty in U.S. District Court to killing the animal with a rifle on his 20-acre property near Porthill, Idaho, at the Canadian border. He lives five miles from the closest grizzly bear recovery zone.
The grizzly bear is classified as a threatened species in the lower 48 states, according to the Endangered Species Act, and protected by federal law. Hill's charge is a misdemeanor.
Magistrate Judge Candy Dale set trial, at least for now, for Oct. 4.
Hill has declined comment. His lawyer, Marc Lyons of Coeur d'Alene, said he plans to defend Hill on the basis of self-defense and protection of family.
Following the hearing, his father, Mike Hill, of Athol, said, "This whole thing is a waste of taxpayer money."
He said his son was concerned for the safety of his children playing outside when a mother grizzly and two cubs wandered onto his property on May 8.


SOURCE (http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news/article_65972651-9003-5b14-b4e6-730e29ff6b8a.html)

[jumpy]

So, he shot the bear, then called the authorities? Would not the same have taken the bear + cubs away had he called them first?

Sounds like a bit of a simpleton to me. :-?

[Stealhead]

I am pretty sure that it is not illegal to kill even an endangered animal if truly in self defense so if the man was being honest he felt that he was doing the right thing calling the authorities to report the shooting.If lives out in rural Idaho then he is pretty far from a simpleton that is a very harsh region a simpleton would not survive out there.

This is an example of a hard core DA a rather common occurrence in the US.They also like to punish people for trespassing on protected government property even though they had no way of knowing that they where in a protected area and in violation of a law in the first place.

This guy did the correct thing and reported it even though he could easily have not informed anyone so they aim to punish the guy which will do worlds of good for game wardens who rely very heavily on other hunters and outdoors men to report violators of hunting regulations all this is going to do is make the honest folks less likely to trust law enforcement which means that the people who openly kill grizzlies will not get reported.

[Platapus]

This was just an arraignment.

At an arraignment the judge reads all the charges the prosecutor is considering and accepts a plea from the defendant.

After the defendant pleads not guilty, the prosecutor will reexamine the charges and the validity of the case. Depending on how the prosecutor evaluates the case (both judicially and politically, unfortunately) charges may be lowered or dropped entirely.

Large numbers of people who are arraigned have the charges dropped.

A review of U.S. Code Title 16 section 1538 does not reveal any prohibitions that would apply to this case.

A review of CFR Title 50 Section 17.21c2 does state

Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(1) of this section, any person may take endangered wildlife in defense of his own life or the lives of others.

I suspect these charges will be dropped. :yep:

The prosecutor would have to prove that this person was not in fear of his or his family's lives. A mother grizzly bear and her cubs outside a reserve an on personal property, evidently hunting for food, would reasonably be considered a threat.

Not that I agree with Hill's conduct. But I don't believe his actions would be illegal.

[AVGWarhawk]

I would have shot the bear as well if there was simply no alternative. Just as the mother bear protects her cubs with no regard for self so do human's when it comes to their cubs and safety. I agree this is a waste of tax payer's money.

[Platapus]

I agree this is a waste of tax payer's money.

I respectfully disagree. There is a process of finding out the facts and rendering an official (judicial) decision.

An act that is illegal was committed.

A grizzly bear was shot and killed. Killing a grizzly bear is illegal. There are laws against this. However, these laws also include exceptions which may allow justifiable or excusable outcomes.

The next process is to determine whether this specific act was justifiable or excusable from a judicial standpoint. Due process involves not only an investigation but also a series of hearings/evaluations.

Judicial Due Process is never a waste of money. It is one of our most precious civil rights. In my opinion, the most precious. All our other civil rights are worthless unless we have the right to judicial Due Process.

Due Process needs to be applied equally to those we feel may be guilty as well as to those we feel may be innocent.

[Armistead]

This man obviously chose to live right next to a Griz recovery zone in an area that contains several types of bears and other wildlife that should concern a parent. If that's your choice it limits letting your children roam and play at will. I'm sure bears wander his property all the time, should he shoot them all?

He should follow the law or move and he should be charged with a crime.