POLL: If You Shoot Three Bears, Can You Still Call It Self-Defense?

[pianoman9701]

It's his word against the state and if it went down as he says, I think he was protecting himself and is innocent. He should be paid a reward. Bears in NJ are so over-populated because of the animal huggers that three of them won't be missed.

I have 2 questions..
1.What loads were in shotgun?

2.If they were humans, would it pass the "Reasonably Prudent" law ? WAC 192-100-010

According to the story, he was in fear of his life and property...
Probably jacked up on adrenalin.
IMHO, the time only to stop shooting when in fear is while reloading...

1. Don't know
2. They weren't humans so it's a whole different set of rules.

[CP]

I think a better title for this thread would be :

If you voted for anything other than undecided would you consider yourself to be a part of the rush to judgement crowd that is ruining our country??

I’m thinking that you rushed into that conclusion – but I’ll think on it awhile

[pianoman9701]

I think a better title for this thread would be :

If you voted for anything other than undecided would you consider yourself to be a part of the rush to judgement crowd that is ruining our country??

But that wasn't the title and the OP asked for our opinion based on the article. Rush to judgement crowd? This isn't the freaking OJ trial or any other trial involving the shooting of a human. It's just about a guy shooting three bears off his porch. We get it: you voted undecided. Thanks for sharing. 

[ghosthunter]

I voted "innocent." Maybe it wasn't necessary, killing all those bears. But nobody else witnessed it, so it's impossible to say. I assume the guy reported the incident to authorities himself? If so, that should be enough to show that he wasn't trying to hide anything. If he hires an attorney I see no way the state would win this case against him.

 

[Southpole]

It's his word against the state and if it went down as he says, I think he was protecting himself and is innocent. He should be paid a reward. Bears in NJ are so over-populated because of the animal huggers that three of them won't be missed.

That's what I was thinking. Because of the off and on ban of bear hunting in NJ, the bear populations has exploded. The story doesn't have a lot of detail, but maybe these bears were repeat offenders and unafraid of people and the guy just had enough. I'm tired of reading stories of, burning people on the cross, for defending themselves on their own property from predators.   

[DOUBLELUNG]

I didn't vote, but in answer to the title question YES.  There are multiple verified accounts through history of sows with yearling cubs attacking aggressively.  I read the article, based on what I would expect the forensic evidence to look like, if consistent with the story I say he wins.  If inconsistent (e.g., a Texas heart shot with entry through the tail), he loses.  A dead bear on the deck with blood oozing from its neck is not inconsistent with his story. 

[JJB11B]

I cannot believe this is even an issue, not only should the guy be allowed to do that, he should be able to keep the animals for food and for the hides..

[JJB11B]

I didn't vote, but in answer to the title question YES.  There are multiple verified accounts through history of sows with yearling cubs attacking aggressively.  I read the article, based on what I would expect the forensic evidence to look like, if consistent with the story I say he wins.  If inconsistent (e.g., a Texas heart shot with entry through the tail), he loses.  A dead bear on the deck with blood oozing from its neck is not inconsistent with his story. 

if he was able to kill 3 bears with bird shot.....I say he is in the right.

[bearpaw]

I haven't heard anything new on this?

[Becky]

Robert Ehling of Sparta

This is Spartaaaaaaaaaaa! 

[Firedogg]

We all know he's guilty but like to think he can shoot a few bear in so called self defense. It's not so much that he did as the principle behind property rights.

 I have family in rural west NJ, they say they have plenty of bear, too many. They also say there is a growing trend of folks baiting bear onto their property and shooting them in the name of "self defense". It's like the wolf fight here, the city folk think ohh they are cute and the folks living with them think otherwise.

[Stein]

At least innocent until proven guilty, probably innocent.

A reasonable person faced with an angry bear in close proximity would fear for their life or grave danger.  I don't see what it matters if it was one or 100 - in fact, three bears probably equates to an increased danger.  Nothing leads one to believe they were running away or not posing a threat.

[Lucky1]

I think a better title for this thread would be :

If you voted for anything other than undecided would you consider yourself to be a part of the rush to judgement crowd that is ruining our country??

I voted innocent. I think that if you have wild animals that do not run away at the sound of a gun shot and are invading the space that you and your family live in then you are doing the right thing by taking them out of the gene pool. He did the right thing. Bears are animals, not people.
So, no, I do not think I am rushing to judgement and ruining our country.

[rasbo]

when the critters come onto a deck they need to be taken care of..Its just a matter of time I feel before they come into the house...How they are taken care of should be up to the homeowner at the time...what is considered a threat to some ,may be nothing to another...Bears have destroyed my moms Cadillac and camping trailor,and now they come on her deck,she still thinks its cute...Her home is next...

[jasnt]

when the critters come onto a deck they need to be taken care of..Its just a matter of time I feel before they come into the house...How they are taken care of should be up to the homeowner at the time...what is considered a threat to some ,may be nothing to another...Bears have destroyed my moms Cadillac and camping trailor,and now they come on her deck,she still thinks its cute...Her home is next...