Feds Come Down on Father for Defending His Kids From Grizzly

[Soul Doctor]

A government as overbearing and depraved as our own does not have the consent of the governed. For example, Jeremy Hill of Porthill, Idaho stands charged in federal court of killing a grizzly bear to protect his children. His peers are hardly taking the government’s side.

The most dangerous kind of grizzly — a mother with its cubs — invaded the property where Hill is raising six children. They attacked pigs kept in a pen. Hill sensibly shot one of the bears, scaring the others off.

Then he did something foolish: instead of adhering to the three S’s (shoot, shovel, shut up), he informed the antihuman moonbat authorities, who have charged him with a federal crime, the Tenth Amendment having been discarded.

So many of Hill’s supporters packed the courtroom at his arraignment that they had to move the hearing to a larger room. About $20,000 has been raised locally for his defense from the federal leviathan.

If found guilty of putting his children’s safety before the well-being of the bears, Hill could face a year in prison, a $50,000 fine, and a year of “supervised release.”

Do our rulers expect that the next time Hill’s children are menaced by a bear, instead of defending them he will call up Washington and ask them to send out a bureaucrat?

No one could be expected to obey the laws we are forced to live under by our liberal overlords. In a tyranny, the law has no meaning. Government does not represent us, but is merely a threat we need to defend ourselves against, like bears.

http://moonbattery.com/?p=1481
​

 

[benjamin a]

If it threatens your kids, shoot it and deal with the government later.

 

[dijahtude08]

Them Americans have weird laws :neutral:

 

[just me..]

View attachment 4620
Click because I am too lazy to resize it.

 

[#2 yankeesfan]

time for this man to turn to his representatives and if they decline to help, he needs to work to defeat them.

 

[Pompal 09.]

Laws in the states guilty till proven inoccent still intact?.

 

[mai9613]

That was both rude and a wrong.

 

[The Lemur]

I am not sure why you call me rude and wrong. I was just asking because I felt bad for the man. It was just a question, so please get off your white horse and stop insulting without proper knowledge.

 

[loves2read]

Take it easy Joe. Papasmerf is a good man he just jumps the gun a bit too early.

All is good.

 

[Pam R]

The operative word there is "gun" lol...

I have a feeling there might be more to this story than that article is letting on. I think I read somewhere that a grizzly is a protected animal, probably more so than livestock. Now were the bears actually threatening him and the kids? Were they in some far off corner of the property? (I ask because you do NOT want a pigpen anywhere near your house). Was the bear he shot actually leaving the property? (kind of like what would happen if you shot a burglar in the back while he was leaving your property, you'd have a hard time convincing anyone it was in self-defence).....

I would hazard a guess that the family wasn't in imminent danger that's why the charges were laid. I guess, unlike humans, you can't just shoot an animal just because it wanders onto your property.....

 

[KendrickWarren]

As for the guilty until proven innocent comment. Psmerf, you have to admit there have been a LOT of cases where the investigators think someone is guilty then go about making the evidence prove that instead of letting the evidence decide who the perps are......