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

[bearpaw]

Innocent or Guilty?

If You Have Time to Shoot Three Bears, Can You Still Call It Self-Defense?

A New Jersey man is going to court this month over three bears he killed in October, 2014 on his porch. He claims they were shot in self-defense, but his four summonses to appear before a judge say otherwise.

See more at: http://sportingclassicsdaily.com/issue/2015-1/article/self-defense#sthash.LdwN0kmK.dpuf

[Curly]

The guy may have been a little too trigger happy.  But maybe not....... 

[bobcat]

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.

[fisheral87]

I spent a fair amount of time with a coastal brown bear sow and three two year old cubs, they operate as a group similarly to yotes, wolves, lions. I think it is possible to have a group collectively engage.

If this guy engaged the Bears without cause, I hope they throw the book at him.

Al

[Fl0und3rz]

Innocent until proven guilty.  IMO, the case for self-defense may not be so extraordinary, based on his account. 

[BoomWhop]

I think he is guilty....That said I don't think anyone could prove he is guilty. I am not sure but I think there may be a different level of burden of proof when it comes to the "self defense" defense. I believe the burden of proof falls on the shooter to prove his life was in danger, not the other way around. Otherwise you could walk up to anyone, anywhere, anytime, and shoot them, then say "self defense".

[Bob33]

Only if they're not named Papa, Mama, and Baby.

[CP]

He shot Papa bear but he was too big …

So he shot Mama bear but she was too fat …

So he shot baby bear and he was just right …

I love a happy ending. 

[TheHunt]

hahahahhaha  To funny

[WildBear]

Crazy... I went with undecided. Probably innocent. Trigger happy for sure but understandable if he was feeling threatened. Just crazy!

[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.

[mfswallace]

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??

[STIKNSTRINGBOW]

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...

[westsidehntr]

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??

 

[GUscottie]

I voted undecided. I'll throw my  out there with my career having some bearing on my opinions...

He was cited due to there being probable cause (51%), or he was "more likely than not" killing the bears rather than protecting his house. Knowing a little bit about NJ, I do know they have a bad bear problem. I'll also say this, I'm surprised the officer cited him rather than forwarding it to the prosecutor for review and "consideration" of charges.

My opinion is the charges will be dropped due to there being no independent witnesses who saw or can say they saw this incident occur, whether he was truthfully protecting his property or not...

I voted undecided even with my bias

[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...