Genius in Evergreen Shoots Bears

[Irving]

Right decision or not, the law says even if your dog is getting hurt, it's still illegal. City limits, not city limits, whatever, you cannot shoot bears for perceived or actual threat to pets. Everything else aside, the simple act of killing the bears WAS illegal.

See statue 33-3-106


https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Wi...nZqilKBb8TyeZQ

Not arguing that part at all. Bad shot all around. Just don't think people should be given sentences for what COULD have happened.

[Ah Pook]

A bear proof container would have saved him a lot of trouble. I'm not sure I see protecting livestock or animals an excuse in this case because he introduced the dog into the situation.

Bear gets in my trash, I need to fix the problem trash. My neighbors are armed. I have no problem with that until one shoots my house. I don't care what the round is made of. I'm sure they are of the same mindset.

[hollohas]

[Irving]

What does "illegal discharge of a firearm" mean? What is the scope off that charge? Could the same be applied to firing within city limits? Next, how was he in illegal possession of wildlife?
Finally, with all the arm chair quarterbacking going on in this thread (mostly by me), how do we know this guy is really a genius?

[hollohas]

What does "illegal discharge of a firearm" mean? What is the scope off that charge? Could the same be applied to firing within city limits? Next, how was he in illegal possession of wildlife?
Finally, with all the arm chair quarterbacking going on in this thread (mostly by me), how do we know this guy is really a genius?

I don't know the illegal discharge of firearm requirements but the illegal possession of wildlife always comes with illegally shooting game animals. He shot it and it was in his yard, therefore it is in his possession.

[BushMasterBoy]

Since the dog is "property" and the bear is state "property", the bear killing the dog is loss of property without due process! Is it unreasonable that the bear killing your dog, it is safe to assume that the bear will kill you next? My defense to the charges would be "the choice of two evils" law.

The defense of choice of evils can be offered by a defendant who is faced with an emergency situation and has to choose between two courses of action, each of which will cause some harm. Conduct that is otherwise criminal will be excused of the defendant chooses a course of action that causes less harm than would have been caused if the defendant had strictly followed the law. For example, a person who sees an assault in progress is probably justified in gabbing a cell phone from a passer-by to call the police. It is wrong to grab the phone, but it would be far worse to allow the assault to continue. A defendant can use this defense to justify actions that would otherwise be illegal. This defense has certain limits. The defense is set out in C.R.S. § 18-1-702.

Source: http://www.boulder-bar.org/bar_media_manual/law/5.9.html

[Hummer]

According to the media, it sounds the Colorado Parks and Wildlife gave him the rubber buckshot rounds.

End of that program in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1....

I don't think so. It's an effective program for non lethal deterrence against problem bears.

Unfortunate mistakes on his part. I don't wish to see the guy get a felony though. Sounds like he was trying to do the right thing by getting the Bears out of there but maybe made a mistake on rounds in his gun or feared for his dog. Yes he screwed up but a felony is a bit much.

It's not clear whether the homeowner shot with the realization that the third round was a lethal round. He may have simply made the mistake of not being aware of his loading sequence. If that's the case, the lack of intent should take it out of the felony category. It's a lesson for anyone in that situation.

My mountain home is in an area frequented by problem bears, some of which are tagged bears transplanted from the Boulder-Longmont area. I'm careful about avoiding bear problems but enough of my neighbors are not, so we often have encounters with bears. Six years ago, DOW issued rubber buck shot to me, and I used one for the first time last year on a bear that came to the house one morning. I load 3 rubber buckshot followed by 3 lethal rounds. One shot to the ass of this bear sent him running fast, hopefully not to return.

Since I change the loading of the shotgun for different uses, I always prominently tag the gun with the loading.

We expect bears to wander and be anywhere at night, but around our abode during the day, they are not welcome. Bears can be unpredictable and dangerous. I'd rather deter a bear with rubber buckshot than be hurt by one, or have to kill one in defense.

[hollohas]

My defense to the charges would be "the choice of two evils" law.

^That's for people not property. And dogs aren't technically property anyway I don't believe. Livestock is, pets aren't.

[hollohas]

One shot to the ass of this bear sent him running fast, hopefully not to return.

This is what I would expect. The fact this guy fired two rubber buckshot rounds and the Cubs were still there makes me believe he must have missed or something...

[Bailey Guns]

Choice of evils might apply if he hadn't committed some type of unlawful act to begin with. He's gonna have a hard time using a choice of evils defense since his unlawful behavior (dog harassing wildlife and/or reckless endangerment) led to him committing the act for which he'd argue choice of evils.

This guy's just a dumbass all the way around.