Man Charged with Killing Grizzley (In defense of his family)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I think it's really too bad they way things have changed over the decades. Back in the depression days of the 1930s, we camped out in tents in the campgrounds in Yellowstone Park and, every evening about supper time, bears (bruins - not grizzlies) came in and raided garbage cans - frequently within less than 100 feet away from our camp. We had "Campfire" meetings where the rangers educated us about Yellowstone and, more than once, I would physically bump into a bruin on a trail - surprising us both - invariable, we both instinctively turned and ran in opposite directions -

It seemed the only injuries bears inflicted were on visitors doing something dumb - I remember one woman got her index finger bit off because she wanted a picture of the bear trying to get away from her and she poked it in the butt so it would turn around so she could get a frontal shot.:rolleyes:

Black bears that became problems were trapped and relocated a long ways out - and, if they returned "euthanized".

OTOH - Grizzlies mostly avoided human camps and stayed in the far out wild parts of the park. If any Grizzly started visiting campgrounds, they were instantly dealt with. I remember one night - we had a trailer (primitive by today's standards - but we slept off the ground) about 30-40 feet away from garbage cans and, in the middle of the night - a shooting war broke out not more than 10 feet or so from where I was sleeping. Rangers knew the grizzly was coming there and drove up in a pickup with two rangers standing in the bed with 30-06 rifles coming up on our side because there was no camping on the other side of the garbage cans - and they very efficiently ended her camp robbing career right then - safely.
 
Last edited:
This is one of those situations where the man should have shut up and lawyered up immediately. The biggest problem is that he even mentioned that there were (pet) pigs involved. Defending pigs, whether livestock or pets, against grizzly bear attack, from my brief research, is not legal -- if it is legal, there has to be an attack in progress, not just a threat. The fact that he even mentioned it suggests that he didn't feel his claim of defense of his kids was strong enough on its own. That is the core of the problem IMO.

The lesson here, I think, is not, and I'm not suggesting it should be, that shooting grizzlies under any circumstances is wrong. It's that such an action needs to be taken very seriously, roughly as seriously as taking a human life. And like self defense against another human, you have to take the ensuing events seriously as well. You do not call up the police after a self defense shooting and start rambling about how a burglar was checking out some pigs on your property in your statement of reasoning for why you had to defend yourself with lethal force. You do not describe the attackers as "wandering" onto your property. Those sorts of things could easily hang you in a self defense case against a human.

My personal opinion is that bears are dangerous especially grizzlies and a man has a right to protect his property. The government is way out in the deep end of this issue and people will be hurt. We don't need those bears back here. When they got rid of them over 60 years ago, that was a good thing for Idaho. I don't welcome these huge beasts back.
Click to expand...

As counterpoint, one might reverse that statement. While it has no legal bearing on the situation, it certainly has at least a little bit of logical and ethical standing. My personal opinion is that humans are dangerous, especially humans with guns, and wildlife has a right to protect its territory. The government is way out in the deep end of this issue [disregarding non-human animal rights] and animals will get hurt. We don't need those humans here. When they didn't used to be around as much, centuries ago, that was a good thing for Idaho. I don't welcome these 2-legged beasts.

Now, I'm not so rabidly pro- animal rights that I would choose risk to humans over the life of another species. [And legal hunting is a whole other ball game which I'm not about to challenge ethically or legally, because hunting varmints and in-season game animals has higher policy goals that, while tragic to individual animals, has broader goals that arguably offset that.] But grizzlies are an endangered species for a reason. If someone objects to that, they should seek to speed up the federal challenge to grizzlies' endangered status. Barring that, one must respect that they are endangered, and should do everything reasonably possible to ensure safety of humans and prevent close encounters with grizzlies, without shooting them.

It may well be that the law should be changed, but in the meantime, it is what it is, and responsible citizens follow it... while lobbying to change it, if they so choose.
Click to expand...
well, the next time you are driving 72 in a posted 70 zone I hope you receive a ticket for the most amount of money possible and the cop asks if you min if he searches the car because its nothing personal but they are weeding out drug runners. Even though you might be out-of-stae on vacation you can come back for court or pay the ticket because that is the law at this point. Even if it is ridiculous, it is the law so you need to abide by it because he/she has the right to do this to you & give you an attitude about it because he/she has the right to be that way if he/she pleases too.
Click to expand...

In this case, the object of the law is not some documentation or procedural or bureaucratic requirement, or even some nebulous, attenuated risk of an accident being reduced. In this case there is a bear, now dead, and the object of the law was to keep the bear from being killed. Don't you see a difference between that and some bureaucratic procedural traffic rules that are obnoxious (and probably not valid, not that the SCOTUS would ever rule that way)? It may also be that laws prohibiting shooting wildlife are unconstitutional, but in such cases it's not just the laws that you have to weigh; you also have to weigh the animals being killed, and while of course that's less of a concern than human safety, if human safety could have been reasonably guaranteed in this case without harming any of the bears, by calling the kids inside, that is what should have been done.
 
Great points Tyme on the issue of how to approach reporting this situation. Since his statements are really the only evidence in this case, seeking legal help right from the start is a smart way to approach this. Yes, the legal ramifications are equal in many ways to the seriousness of shooting a burglar. Hadn't really thought of it in those terms but yes, lawyer up right away before you give any evidence to the Feds to use against you in the court of law.
 
I will refrain from speculating further about what did happen, but it suffices to say I am not convinced by Mr. Hill's various (and slightly conflicting) stories. He's raising a bunch of small kids on the edge of the wilderness and the most practical form of defense is his daughter's unloaded .270? His kids didn't know how to react to seeing a grizzly bear nearby, and it took longer for them to get inside than it took Mr. Hill to retrieve and load a .270? He just happened to have 3 and only 3 rounds for the .270? I don't really know where to begin.

This should be, in any reasonably justified shooting of a grizzly, a slam dunk case for Mr. Hill, one in which any sane Feds would not even bring charges. He and his family are the only witnesses. And yet he couldn't convince investigators that he shot the bear due to an immediate threat to his children. His own plea for legal fund assistance says, "The U.S. Government has filed a criminal complaint against Jeremy Hill for killing a grizzly bear that was attacking his property and which was a serious and immediate threat to Jeremy's children." He wonders why he's being prosecuted, when he's also stated that he had to retrieve and load a .270 to deal with the bears? Not so immediate a threat, apparently, and attacking property is not a valid reason for shooting a grizzly.


For the nth time:
Don't talk to the police [or any law enforcement]


Here's one other story with an account of the incident, one which I haven't seen posted in this thread.

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outd...ses-details-north-idaho-grizzly-killing-case/
 
"I don't doubt the sincerity of the sentiment, but wonder whether it would survive a hostile encounter with a bear."

I never said it wouldn't.

I wouldn't stand there and let myself become a very fatty human mcnugget any more than any other critter would.

If forced to do so, I'd obviously try to either flee or defend myself, as would any other animal.

Unless I'm attacked by a grizzly in my 6th story office in downtown Washington, DC, I recognize that I'm it its environment. So, I don't tend to get very bent out of shape when I hear that someone on the hinterlands, or in the true wild, has had a meaningful encounter with Mother Nature and lost.
 
I am no expert on the law surrounding endangered species, but it might be law in DC as well.

Mike Irwin said:
So, I don't tend to get very bent out of shape when I hear that someone on the hinterlands, or in the true wild, has had a meaningful encounter with Mother Nature and lost.
Click to expand...

In this case he didn't lose that encounter - a fact about which we can both be happy. How he fairs in the subsequent mauling is where we seem to diverge.
 
I said something similar to this in another thread about self-defense against two-legged varmints -- repeat the mantra:

I was afraid for my [my family's] life.
I was afraid for my [my family's] life.
I was afraid for my [my family's] life.
I was afraid for my [my family's] life.
I was afraid for my [my family's] life.

And leave it at that. No reason to talk about pigs, cows, or narwhals.
 
tyme

In this case, the object of the law is not some documentation or procedural or bureaucratic requirement, or even some nebulous, attenuated risk of an accident being reduced. In this case there is a bear, now dead, and the object of the law was to keep the bear from being killed. Don't you see a difference between that and some bureaucratic procedural traffic rules that are obnoxious (and probably not valid, not that the SCOTUS would ever rule that way)? It may also be that laws prohibiting shooting wildlife are unconstitutional, but in such cases it's not just the laws that you have to weigh; you also have to weigh the animals being killed, and while of course that's less of a concern than human safety, if human safety could have been reasonably guaranteed in this case without harming any of the bears, by calling the kids inside, that is what should have been done.
Click to expand...

to answer your question, yes I do see that. the post(s) I was responding to kept stating it is the law and that is what matters. No, the legality isn't the extreme issue here. I saw a kid get a homerun one day and instead of enjoying that homerun for the rest of his life some dumb teenage umpire took that away because he slapped hands w/the other team's 3rd base coach(who happened to be in the vicinity) as he started heading home. It is a rule but a stupid one and he was called out and didn't get the homerun.

endangered grizzly bears as you described is a big issue and very serious, but that doesn't mean that other legality argument holds mustard(the one I was responding to). I for one love bears and I love animals, and I am big on preserving endangered species - as in the political debate I mean. I have to side on the homeowner's side in this situation without a doubt.

PS to expand on your traffic argument being somewhat meaningless: it isn't just a traffic law when you kill a child on a bike because you were 15miles per hour over the speed limit. And despite what thoughts people have entertained, if I am driving 15mph over the limit and smash a grizzly, that is better than hitting a child and not an equal event(and I am not just referring to the aftermath and/or feelings of guilt that can accompany said event).
 
tyme

I will refrain from speculating further about what did happen, but it suffices to say I am not convinced by Mr. Hill's various (and slightly conflicting) stories. He's raising a bunch of small kids on the edge of the wilderness and the most practical form of defense is his daughter's unloaded .270? His kids didn't know how to react to seeing a grizzly bear nearby, and it took longer for them to get inside than it took Mr. Hill to retrieve and load a .270? He just happened to have 3 and only 3 rounds for the .270? I don't really know where to begin.
Click to expand...

your speculations are a little outrageous or at the very least, unsupported and complete guesses. that is sort of the point here: certain people involved in the case "up front" didn't like the verbal communications after smoky the bandit passed over to the other side w/yogi and
I will refrain from speculating further about what did happen, but it suffices to say I am not convinced by Mr. Hill's various (and slightly conflicting) stories
Click to expand...
to use your quote to finish the above statement



**PS**there are reasons why some others would just dig a hole, tip another beer back, and saddle up the children for another dinner @ the local BBQ establishment(if I may be so bold)
 
Look, you guys can argue all you want. But I FEEL that what he did was unnecessary and he shot the bears out of malice and anger that they might harm his property. I don't feel he did it out of a sense of "defense of family". He broke the law and it'll cost him.

If you don't like bears... DON'T LIVE IN BEAR COUNTRY.
 
I actually meant to put that in as an edit earlier

Tyme, I am not trying to argue w/you. You did make some good points, but sorry - that is how I feel(I meant to add to my first post as well that your bear, endangered animal, etc argument holds serious mustard). I was just trying to make some contary points as I still can't see it the way some are.

to newjersey, I never made this point that I am below but it was mentioned throughout the thread & it is commonsense:

that is easy to say when you live in NJ and not northern ID(so close that a Canadien TFL member mentioned it might've been a british columia bear which isn't even endangered right over the border). I don't like your outlook which is the same as: "if you don't like the gun laws than don't live in NJ." It has no bearing on this incident which this man IS innocent of until he is proven guilty(won't happen). This wasn't some deer eating berries in the man's garden. This case will be referenced in the future after adjudication as well which will be a good thing.:cool:
 
Youngguns, I believe Dickens conveyed your sentiment well before this incident.

Dickens in Oliver Twist said:
'That is no excuse,' replied Mr. Brownlow. 'You were present on the occasion of the destruction of these trinkets, and indeed are the more guilty of the two, in the eye of the law; for the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction.'

'If the law supposes that,' said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, 'the law is a ass--a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience--by experience.'
Click to expand...
 
Reminds me of an old joke about a Cajun who kept loosing kids to an alligator. After losing his fourth kids he tells Ma it is time to move. He isn't going to work all day to support a freeloading alligator.

This guy had other children and the bear would only take one at a time. He could have stayed there until he was down to just a few children, then moved.

Bears return, again and again, to a place where they find easy pickings. When the pig pen and barn are empty, they look to another close building to raid.

This seems to be a lot like the story here in Missouri with the mountain lions. You can only shoot them if they are threatening you or if you catch them in the act of stealing your livestock.

Some of these 4-H pigs sell for a lot of money at county fairs and the money is used for college and to pay bills.

If you don't like bears... DON'T LIVE IN BEAR COUNTRY.
Click to expand...
...And if you do not like the Mob, move out of New Jersey.
Don't like rats, move outta New York City....
Much easier said than done.
 
Who said I don't like the mob? I'm IN the mob, it's a requirement of living in the state and assumed if you own a gun! Never speak against the mob, or you'll end up with the fishes.

As for moving, I'm actively working on it. Maybe they should too.

As for this guy being convicted... Most people thought Casey Anthony would be in jail right now, not being offered book deals and paid interviews. Jury's are funny like that.

But whatever, I'm offically done with this thread. You guys won't convince me, I won't convince any of you. 2 days from now we'll probably be in agreement on something else, 2 days later arguing again. Doesn't mean I don't respect your guys opinion on other subjects, but I think your wrong headed on this one. Just as some of you think I'm wrong. Tis the nature of the universe I suppose :p
 
Last edited:
youngunz4life
Senior Member


Join Date: November 15, 2010
Posts: 939 OJ please see this thread on your home town or newspaper case regarding burglar

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=461058
Click to expand...

Yep - I read the story - it was front page stuff. Boggles the mind seeing where our society is going. There had been a string of robberies and the perps in this one were illegal immigrants since 1998 - smoking meth and stealing stuff to sell so they could buy more illegal drugs.

IIRC, the other perp needed an interpreter for the trial - seems like after living here some 13 years, he should be speaking English.

In addition - unrelated sort of - there is a movement to require ballots for voting be also printed in Spanish - never mind one of the requirements for citizenship required for voting is the ability to speak English.

We give away our right to protect our property we worked to own - it was mentioned above that the lawyers take on the judgment will take a big chunk out of it - I saw an article recently about some lawyers suing their law schools they got their law degrees from for leading their students to believe there were more high paying jobs for graduates than there really were. :confused::mad:
 
This was a mother bear and two fully grown cubs, two year old capable of living on their own.
Click to expand...

2 year old grizzlies are not fully grown.

if one of those kids walked around the corner it could've been all over especially since these bears were getting ready to eat. the man HAD A REASONABLE FEAR in my opinion
Click to expand...

Yes, the bear was getting ready to feed, ON PIGS.

He stepped out onto the back deck from their bedroom and saw one of the bears climbing halfway up the side of the pig pen. He ran out and fired a shot at that bear, which was closest to him, and the other two bears, alarmed by the crack of the rifle, ran away from the pig pen toward the forest behind his house.
Click to expand...

He killed the bear as it was trying to go to the woods, AWAY from the house and hence was not a threat. He may have remained uncharged for shooting the bear when it was trying to get in the pig pens and when the bear charged at the basement in which is was located, but from the description given, he went after the bear to kill it while it was trying to get away.

Jeremy asked Rachel to get the phone book so he could call Fish and Game, but before he could dial, he looked out and saw that the bear was trying to crawl to the woods. He stopped behind a tree, wounded but not dead, and Jeremy took up the rifle again, carefully walked over to the bear, unsure if it was dead or alive, but knowing that a wounded grizzly bear posed a significant threat. Using his last bullet, he fired a final shot, putting the bear out of his misery and ending the threat.
Click to expand...
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outd...ses-details-north-idaho-grizzly-killing-case/

My guess is that this is why the charges are being filed. A jury may find him not guilty for various reasons. If so, that is what is called due process. Of course, they may find him guilty as well, also due process.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top