Operation Persistence

[Drew]

You're still not processing that we've *already* been shooting at this poor dead jokester for the past two years. Or you're choosing to ignore that salient fact.

So you've hit one? How is the jokester dead?

If the guy in the video missed that dark object's center mass at 20' or whatever, then I can see why the potential hoaxers are not concerned.

[Guest]

Common sense is a bit more prevalent around here...

True that.

So you've hit one? How is the jokester dead?

If the guy in the video missed that dark object's center mass at 20' or whatever, then I can see why the potential hoaxers are not concerned.

Oh, that's funny! You're pretending not to understand that I was referring to your fictionally deceased teenage hoaxer with the weeping mother being avenged by the righteous criminal prosecutor. Good one! But it leaves me confused as to your real motive for participating in this conversation. Are you concerned for the safety of other or just trying to poke me with a stick? Seems disingenuous to say you're both.

Do you see the difference yet?

Let's see if you can answer your own question. According to you, we will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for gunning down in cold blood some poor SOB who's just having a laugh at our expense by pretending to be a hairy bipedal primate in an area where we've made it quite clear our objective it to collect one. But, as I've said repeatedly, we've already taken shots at them. Multiple times. So, can you see why I'm not too concerned about it being hoaxers? A reasonable person would presume another reasonable person would have given up on the hoaxing the first time a bullet whizzed by them. Right? I mean, can we even agree on that?

[Guest]

Drew. Why are you trying so hard to dissuade Bip and crew from attempting to do what they say they are going to do (take a specimen) ?

No disrespect but it really seems like the fear you're trying to instill in them is actually inside yourself.

[norseman]

if people are legally engaged in hunting? and you chose to dress up like a game animal and on top of that commit criminal trespass? and you get shot?

ill take those odds in a court of law as a shooter.

If you claim to be hunting Chupacabras, and people dogs start showing up with bullet wounds in them, you are going to get charged.

If you claim to be hunting Unicorns, and you kill a horse, you are going to be charged.

If you claim to be hunting Bigfoots in the woods of eastern oklahoma, and you shoot a kid, you are going to be charged.

However, if you are hunting deer, and shoot a person in a deer suit accidently, you are not going to be charged most likely.

Same with bear, moose, wild pigs, and any other existing animal.

Do you see the difference yet? Do you see what a prosecutor would think if you told him you were shooting Bigfoots or Wood Apes?

the distinction is not the fact that people are hunting cryptids vs real animals like you think.

the distinction is that in two of your scenarios the shooter is shooting property and not game animals. and of course shooting a person goes without saying.

your deer scenario most closely matches a bigfoot shooting unless of course bigfoot is a protected species as is the case in skamania county in washington. i still dont think the shooter would be charged with manslaughter though as his crime was shooting a protected species per his perception when in reality it was a man in a suit.

concerning wild animals most states general list endangered species and game species in which seasons, bag limits, sex, age and other stipulations concerning hunting them apply. any wild animal outside of that purview are open season period. shoot as many as you like, when you like......

examples in many states would include coyotes, squrriels,etc

so other wise stated squatch would fall into this category as of right now in most places.

[Guest]

...it really seems like the fear you're trying to instill in them is actually inside yourself.

A psychologist might have a good time poking around in there...

[WSA]

And Drew...I owed you and explanation as to why I thought your legal analysis was flawed. In doing that, I realize I'm talking out my posterior, as would anyone who is not on the ground in area X, experiencing these situations. With the usual caveats and disclaimers, etc., etc., let me just hit on my perception of the issues that might be presented if a human were indeed mistakenly killed by a member of one of the OP teams.

From the standpoint of a civil suit, my understanding of OK law is that the standard of proof for a plaintiff is a modified contributory negligence standard, or modified comparative negligence. As I recall, a plaintiff must show he was less than 50% negligent to recover. (As opposed to the jurisdiction where I practice, where ANY contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff would defeat recovery) That is a pretty tough bar to clear when you are talking about a trespasser who is behaving in an (presumed) irrational and reckless way. Wantonness is a different matter alltogether, and is not subject to a comparison standard. But, I would presume OK law would require a conscious act with the knowledge that injury is likely to result, even a higher burden of proof for a plaintiff.

On the criminal side of things, we have even less of a basis to armchair Bipto's team. So much is left to the discretion of the State's Attorney to submit/not the matter to a grand jury, which may or may not return an indictment. Politics and local sentiment are a huge driver of those decisions on all sides and, sadly, budget as well. In the most general terms though, anyone is entitled to exercise deadly force in their own defense, subject to the requirement of a duty to retreat (and modified by any applicable "stand your ground" statutes). All that would matter for the shooter to successfully raise the defense is the fact they reasonably thought they were threatened. That would be on a charge of manslaughter or criminal negligence...and again, just going on general legal precepts and not based on any specific knowledge I have of OK law. Premeditation is a very poor fit for the scenarios we are discussing. Specific intent to kill an individual would need to be shown to the satisfaction of a jury. If I had to hazard a prediction, at most, discharging a firearm towards an unknown thing in the woods at night, which turned out to be a human who gets injured or killed, is equivalent to reckless endangerment, or a similar such charge under OK law.

Do these shooters run some risk in proceeding like they are? Absolutely, as nothing is for certain, but they've obviously sized up the risk/benefits and come to their obvious conclusions. One part of me would like to see the existence/not of the Wood Ape thrashed out in front of a rural jury in OK. Unless I miss my guess, you'd have many members in your venire who had either seen or heard of someone seeing such an animal and would have not the least hesitancy in pronouncing their actions reasonable. (Not since the Scopes "Monkey" trial, eh.....? ) As has been pointed out already, rural people have very little tolerance for people who lack the common sense to avoid obvious dangers, especially while trespassing. If somebody wants to plug away at sounds in the bushes (to presume how you would characterize their actions) that is their by-Gawd right as citizens, I would expect them to conclude.

On a much simpler level of analysis though, you've got to not overlook the reported outcome when the "things" were shot at by Bipto's team the first time: They came back and persisted. One, as has been reported, was wounded. Still these "things" persisted. I don't know about you, but that is a real indication to me these are not hoaxers or even humans, whatever else you might believe.

Edited April 9, 2013 by WSA

[Guest]

bipto, on 09 April 2013 - 03:55 AM, said:

WRT to the idea that we'd accidentally shoot an "unarmed person" in the course of our work, if said person growled at us and came busting though the bush in our direction, yes, they may find themselves in a difficult position. Anyone attempting to hoax or otherwise interfere with what we're doing there would be playing a very dangerous game indeed.

Drew said: This reeks of premeditation.Screen shot. You have been warned repeatedly that you are in danger of shooting a person performing a prank. It sounds as though you have planned for this scenario.

Have you planned for the contingency that this does happen at Area X? What are your procedures if you do shoot a person who is pulling a prank? Will it be different options if it is a high school kid? as opposed to an adult?

Drew, do you have knowledge that someone is going to try deliberately to hoax bipto and his crew?

Edited April 9, 2013 by madison5716

[Guest]

On a much simpler level of analysis though, you've got to not overlook the reported outcome when the "things" were shot at by Bipto's team the first time: They came back and persisted. One, as has been reported, was wounded. Still these "things" persisted. I don't know about you, but that is a real indication to me these are not hoaxers or even humans, whatever else you might believe.

That.

Also, to be fair, we presume the blood we found was from the wounded ape. It was in the right area, there were other implicating factors, and we know from looking at the dispersal pattern of the slugs on the surrounding trees that it was a very close shave for the ape. However, until such time that DNA analysis techniques are sufficient to determine the source of the blood, it cannot be conclusively said that it was from the ape.

[Ike]

+1000 to WSA here. I'm no lawyer, but have spent some time reading up on such things some years ago when getting my HCP. Drew, I think perhaps your Canadian citizenship (if I understood your earlier post correctly) gives you some warped sense of how justice is dispensed here in the US, much less in Oklahoma. You seem to be of the misguided belief that when Man A shoots Man B, that automatically Man A goes to jail for a very long time. Our system is nowhere near that simplistic. Depending on circumstances (intent and so forth) it is not uncommon for a shooter such as Man A to receive a "no bill" ruling from a grand jury which means there is insufficient criminal evidence to put a person on trial. It can also be, if I understand correctly, that a prosecutor or district attorney may choose to not pursue a case if he feels that a criminal prosecution is not warranted. I believe you may also find that in rural regions such as Oklahoma, it is even possible that the county sheriff may choose to not pursue a criminal investigation, though in the past 20-30 years that may not be so true anymore. However, I can almost guarantee you that in rural Oklahoma, you would never find a jury who would charge a suspect for killing an unknown (to the shooter) victim wearing a monkey suit in the night on private property which is in an exceptionally remote location and clearly marked with no trespassing signs.

The simple fact is, that I am certain there are all kinds of cases in the history of this country where a man in the woods has accidentally shot and killed another human and was not criminally charged (and no I'm not going to look it up to prove my point, you can do that yourself if you choose). This type of incident is nowhere near being "premeditated." Tragic? Yes. Criminal? Absolutely not.

BTW...Drew, this was all covered back in early to mid November in this thread. Go back to page 54 or so. You should know as you were spouting this same scare speech back then.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Ike

[salubrious]

No, it doesn't count. Not being a jerk, but scientifically speaking, no, your personal proclamation means no more than the 10,000 that came before it.

Not sure that is entirely true. Even science relies on a witness. The question is really who is the witness. What if its the scientist that is the witness? No-one would believe him either, not until a BF walks down Mainstreet USA. So science really has nothing to say about it. To be correct in your statement, substitute 'socially' for 'scientifically'.

If you would have run it over, we'd be talking about Bigfoot as an animal.

Incorrect, although your statement suggests that you believe my testimony. If I had run over it, we would still be having this conversation as this is not about science and never has been ever. 'Science' apparently only exists within the construct of our social behavior. Unless the entire population accepts BF, no 'scientist' in his right mind is going to acknowledge BF regardless of his evidence. It is socially too risky- one could loose their job and reputation. So if I had run it down, the fact of it would have been covered up and I would have a hellava repair bill on my truck with nothing to show for it.

I might also point out that regardless of whatever you think about BF, if you ever have an encounter what you "think" will go out the window in a heartbeat.

Bipto, I applaud you your patience.

[Drew]

Bipto, do any hiking trails intersect the property? If not, do hiking trails border the property?

[WSA]

Bipto, what is intriguing to me about the terrain you're dealing with is, judging from the photo in your presentation and video clips, it seems remarkably similar to central Alabama's topography and vegetation, where I've spent a lot of time backpacking and camping over the last 25 years. Which, now that I think about it, is not too remarkable at all given the corresponding latitude and climate. I've also spent some time in Arkansas, having once exercised extraordinary hubris in deciding I would undertake a solo walk of the Buffalo River...in late August no less! (Suffice it to say, you can't do that) So, I've got some good idea of the conditions you are operating in and I admire the commitment and stamina of your people. Those from northern climates may not have a very good appreciation how the terrain, climate and flora limit just about everything anyone wants to do in that environment. I know I did not, coming here after years of walking in the Mid-Atlantic U.S. "Jungle" is really not too strong a term. It absolutely does not stretch the imagination to think of an extremely well adapted creature with furtive habits being hard to isolate in that forest.

[norseman]

what really makes me ill is the recent turn of events in this thread in which the very people who demand a type specimen are now belittling the efforts of a group to do thus.......

is there anything at all that a person can rightfully do on your eyes who is somehow involved with this mystery? or is your ultimate goal simply to discredit and destroy all of them?

[Guest]

As I was thinking about this thread last night, it came to me that one possible way to avoid problems would be to wear GoPro cameras in a chest harness and capture your hunts on film. If the bigfoots are not scared away by you actually shooting at them, maybe they wouldn't be so worried by a camera that isn't hand held. And double purpose - could serve as evidence if things go south... in any form.

[Guest]

BTW...Drew, this was all covered back in early to mid November in this thread. Go back to page 54 or so. You should know as you were spouting this same scare speech back then.

Well played, Ike, well played.