Plea Deal in Grizzly Killing

I did not cover the original incident, where a man shot a grizzly bear that was on his property. Looks like federal prosecutors have agreed to let him pay a 1000 dollar civil penalty in exchange for dropping the more serious criminal charges. I’m sure, after the publicity this case has brought, the U.S. Attorney could be pretty confident it would be tough to find a jury that would convict. I sure as hell wouldn’t.

16 thoughts on “Plea Deal in Grizzly Killing”

  1. No doubt you’re right on the lack of jury members willing to convict, especially in Idaho. I had to click through several links to get to any real description of how close the kids & grizzlies were to each other, but the Idaho Fish & Game guy they interviewed seemed to think shooting the bear was a reasonable action, which seems a good indication that even the fine ought to be dropped.

  2. This is where our judicial system fails. A man protecting his property and family from a wild animal, whose behavior is unpredictable at best and life-threatening at worst, shouldn’t have to choose between paying a fine or paying a lawyer. When the attorney knows they won’t get a conviction, that’s not a deal, that’s extortion.

  3. Given this incident was in the same area as Ruby Ridge, why the hell wouldn’t you want it to roll to trial. Not a single person would find him guilty, especially since the local law enforcement cleared the action.

    There is no such thing as winning a law suit, I just wish he would have stuck to his guns to just cram it up the Feds ass.

  4. Barron – Because his Defense lawyer would have cost far more than the $1,000 fine to go through a trial.

    A big black bear uses my yard as a path between two areas of woods. If he shows up while the school bus is approaching, I will be in the same boat as Jeremy Hill.

  5. “Because his Defense lawyer would have cost far more than the $1,000 fine to go through a trial.”

    Amen. As I discovered with the Righthaven suit, it doesn’t matter if you are in the right: plan to spend tens of thousands of dollars defending yourself. If you are completely in the right, there is a small chance that you will be able to recover your legal fees in a civil case. In a criminal case? The only time that I have ever seen the government required to reimburse for any legal fees in a criminal matter was…Ruby Ridge.

  6. “The United States Attorney’s Office well understands Mr. Hill is a concerned husband and father who wants to protect his family,” said [U.S. Attorney Wendy J. Olson]

    Bullcrap. If you actually understood that, you wouldn’t have charged him in the first place, and you wouldn’t have punished him for doing the right thing by reporting it. The only reason you’re saying that is because you see public opinion turning against you.

    The right thing to do would have been to drop it. Anything else is a travesty of justice and yet another sign of the growing American Police State.

  7. So, does he get to keep the bear? Not only a nice rug for the kids, but edible meat for the freezer.

  8. I would say he does not get to keep the bear. Wasting the animal would seem to be the more likely government response.

  9. So, does he get to keep the bear? Not only a nice rug for the kids, but edible meat for the freezer.

    I believe the following quote would sum up the .gov’s viewpoint on that question:

    Jayne: You save his gorram life, he still takes the cargo. Hwoon dahn.
    Mal: He had to. Couldn’t let us profit. Wouldn’t be civilized.

  10. I hate to be the one to say it, but it serves this guy right for being stupid enough to call law enforcement for “help”. He had already taken care of the threat, so what did he need *them* for?

  11. Mobo: I’m thinking he called them because he’s a good man, and belived in doing the right thing. I’m also betting this has broke that habit, at least “contact the authorities”-wise.

Comments are closed.