Skip to comments.Senior Citizen Faces Charges for Shooting Bear That Was About to Attack Him ( Mass )
Posted on 04/09/2013 10:38:04 AM PDT by george76
A 76-year-old man from Auburn, Mass. says a bear was about to kill him when it entered his backyard recently, so he took his gun, aimed it, and fired. He killed the bear, but now the senior citizen and military vet is facing charges because he apparently didnt possess the right gun permit.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnewsinsider.com ...
Shoot, Shovel, Shut up.
If you’re in your 70’s and it’s a bear, the shovel part might be a bit much.
A real problem in this part of the country—he was in MA—is that you couldn’t count on a jury of your peers automatically throwing this out.
He’s a vet that owns a guns? Does he even have peers in MA??
Depends what side he fought for.
Just a way to get rid of one more senior from the obamacare rolls....
latest idea for the left’s very ‘green’ and ‘back to nature’ death panel?
The new gun laws allow them to criminalize everyone. Then remove their right to bear arms. That is the plan.
The insane are running the Asylum.
The problem isn’t dangerous bears but dangerous leftists, obviously.
Second Ammendment is the only permit necessary.
Take it to the USSC!
It’s a damn shotgun, not a tank!
No law can obligate you to be a victim!
infringed past participle, past tense of in·fringe (Verb)
1.Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): “infringe a copyright”.
2.Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: “infringe on his privacy”.
So much for his “Golden Years.” He’s going to have to blow his nest egg to keep out of the slammer, and will be left broke, broken and on the state’s dole. For shooting a bear.
Better to be judged by twelve, than buried by six.
that is why God and Frank Hough made Dynahoe’s.
Go for a Jury trial, cause lawyers do not have much of a grasp on reality.
Here’s an interesting thought exercise. Had the gentleman had the right permit, would the outcome have been any different? No. The bear would still be dead, the human alive. Great! So what is the point of the permit anyway? Apparently we don’t need permits to achieve the desired outcome, so for efficiency’s sake, lets just eliminated permits. In these tough economic times, we can’t afford to waste resources on stupid, obviously useless things like these permits.
” will be left broke”
which is why he should sue under one of the various united states codes (I forget which one) for civil liberty infringment.
I question the notion that a black bear in Massachusetts is a threat to human life. It is extremely rare that it’s necessary to shoot an eastern black bear. What’s the backstory here?
:: pulls out copy of Constitution ::
....the right to bear arms shall not be abridged....
Now, the bear is dead. He can have his bear arms. Case settled.
Good Lord, I despise this state.
Heck, in Florida a man charges you you can shoot him dead. Mass is one whacked out state. Get out while you can.
“Better to be judged by twelve, than buried by six.”
or chewed up by one.
'or chewed up by one.'
Yes. Indeed. In more ways than one.
i question your sanity.
That’s the obamacare bear. He arrives to all homes of senior citizens who have reached the age of 70. The bear is part of an alliance with the Sierra club in exchange for an affordable healthcare act waiver. He is the cost containment bear meant to cap costs thru a heart attack or mauling until dead.
I question the sanity of a guy spreading bird seed all over his land, who’s surprised when a bear shows up, claims to feel mortally threatened, so he goes inside to retrieve a gun, and then goes outside again.
I question his story that this was about his safety, when it was clearly about his convenience.
Also, I question your experience with black bears in the wild.
Fatal attacks by black bears in the wild, esp. in the Eastern US, are extremely rare. Fewer than one per decade on average.
Blacks are not dangerous. In the wild they almost always avoid humans. In fact, it’s pretty hard for your average hiker or camper to find one even if he is being recklessly irresponsible about cooking and waste disposal.
“Feral” does not mean what you seem to think it means.
The gun charge against the guy in Mass. is BS. But he acted like a jerk.
It’s not just back east. In CO, a neighbor of ours kept having repeat visits by a bear, each one more brazen than the last. Dept Wildlife shrugged their shoulders when the guy called to ask for assistance.
After the bear followed them into the home, the guy shot him. Called DOW and they were out in 30 minutes. The guy narrowly escaped being charged because DOW said the bear was running away when he shot it. I think if he hadn’t called the DOW on that earlier incident he would’ve been in some real trouble.
As another FReeper pointed out, this was discussed on a thread yesterday.
The man lives in a suburb of Worchester, MA. The town of Auburn has a population of 15K. It is probably 40 miles west of downtown Boston. This is not out in the country. He almost certainly has other houses within 500’ of his.
He went out to fill his bird feeder. There was a bear in his back yard. It chased him. He went out a second time to fill the feeder. This time he was armed with his shotgun. He shot and killed the bear.
So, he scared the bear and shot it in the back when there was no danger, they say. And now with the new CO law, they'll limit the size of the magazines he gets to use against bears (or Homo-primates) in the confines of his own home.
Black bears bluff charge all the time. It’s what they do. This bear most likely had been habituated to food set out by careless homeowners who need to make up their minds if they want to live in a rural area or a manicured suburb, and then adjust their behavior accordingly. Any homeowner who knows there are bears prowling about and persists in setting out food is reckless — endangering himself, others, and inevitably the bear. A fed bear is a dead bear.
If this homeowner lives in an incorporated town with other residences close by, it is reckless and possibly unlawful to be discharging a firearm unless his life is threatened. Being pestered by a bear lured onto your property because you baited your backyard is not a threat to life. It’s an inconvenience. I think the guy’s a jerk.
Finally: in bear country there are frequently laws against setting out food or trash that will attract bears to populated areas. Just saying.
Agreed, most towns around here in southern NH advise you to take down your bird feeders this time of year to keep nuisance bears from trashing your bird feeders after they come out of hibernation.
Also, most towns/states have a law about discharging a firearm within 500’ of another residence. I believe this is why the guy is in trouble.
Works for home invading thugs, too.
Yep. The bear should’ve lived another day to menace the man and his wife, apparently.
Did I mention that when he called them that he shot the bear that they were at the house within 20 minutes?
“But he acted like a jerk.”
In what way?
Having bear at my home I can assure you that any bear at my home acting as did the one described by the persecuted Mass. resident, would be given a chance to leave. Refusal would constitute Bad Bruin Behavior (BBB) Syndrome. BBB is a serious situation, for bruins and humans, and must be cured in the most expeditious manner.
BBB is caused by a diet deficient in heavy metals.
Immediate injection of lead cures BBB Syndrome.
Under dosage is dangerous to both bruin and human populations, and recommended against.
Get a grip on reality, Rommie.
Contrary to what the Animal Panderers Goonion members told, you, having a bird feeder is not “baiting bear”.
Good try, though.
Would you like to explain that to the bear?
well i can tell you they are not the warm fuzzy critters you think they are,as a young boy i had a run in with one.i was the one running.go find one to play with.
I have more experience than you with wild bears, and more recent. I have said nothing to imply they’re playthings. You made that up because you’ve nothing to counter the things I actually said. Pathetic.
Would you like to explain that to the bear?”
Simple - just remember the words of the Guru: “When gunpowder speaks, beasts obey.”
The question you raised can be reduced to the core issue of “Who Rules”, and its corollary, “To what end the rule”.
Long ago, and far away, Dominion was given to Man, not to Beasts. Despite the perverse, and arguably treasonous, efforts of the Massholes in the Taxachussetts Agencies, man has the right to rule over beasts, including bears determined to be the dominant predator on private property.
As we once fought King George over being forced to quarter English troops, so too are the treasonous now attempting to force Americans to submit to having dangerous beasts quartered on private property.
Those with delusions of royal authority are advised to review the results of King George's attempt to quarter the undesirable on American’s private property.
Because some people cherish their God-given right to be a jerk?
Because baiting your property knowing that it will attract bears, and then shooting them because you don't want bears, is a pretty good example of being a jerk.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.