JDL Posted March 24, 2016 Posted March 24, 2016 That's essentially what Elusus means. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/elusus
FarArcher Posted March 24, 2016 Posted March 24, 2016 That's why one needs to make the kill in Texas. It's legal across the board.
Guest BDK Posted March 25, 2016 Posted March 25, 2016 I think they are a variant of Homo, but certainly not Sapiens. Here lies the problem. What is a "human"? Are other Homo species "human"? If they are, then the laws that protect/govern/regulate "humans" apply to them too because when the law (at least US law) mentions "humans" it does not identify the human as H. sapien sapien, but merely human or some derivation thereof (ex "man", "woman", "child"). Since they are not recognized yet and have not been classified yet, I would argue that they could not charge you for murder of a human species if said human species was only recognized as a result and thus after your shooting. As stated, the 2nd one shot would be a tragedy and should be subject to charges based on whatever protection they are granted. Please note the word "if" in my post. Homicide in the US has varying degrees, ex. first degree, second degree/manslaughter. Here's Black's Law Dictionary's definition of "homicide": The killing of any human creature. If BigFoot is identified as Homo sapien bigfootensis or Homo bigfootiens, killing BF is homicide because hominids are scientifically classified as humans per their genera identification. But we all know that the Law does not have to follow science (please see the US Supreme Court's ruling of Nix v. Hedden, where the Law disregarded science and classified the tomato as a vegetable.) So it's quite conceivable that even if BF is a "human creature", killing one might not be legally considered "homicide" because the Law is under no obligation to follow Science. It would be a very touchy topic at the time it happens. Keep in mind that historically anyone considered "SubHuman" was not protected by the Homicide laws, easiest examples being Native Americans and Slaves. I think any prosecution would come down to the climate of the state, after the initial type classing is completed. A more liberal state such as California could prosecute whereas someplace like Texas I could see the charges not being filed due to the circumstances. The gravity of such a situation if or when it arises will be enormous, depending on the science behind it. Should it turn out to be similar to us, you'd be looking at a total species wide redefinition of just what exactly is human. I could also though easily see if the conspiracy theories about the government being true, that there could already have been such kills and they have been silenced simply based on "Talk and be prosecuted."
Yuchi1 Posted March 25, 2016 Posted March 25, 2016 That's why one needs to make the kill in Texas. It's legal across the board. Feds would make it a hate crime.
gigantor Posted March 25, 2016 Admin Posted March 25, 2016 (edited) If you shoot a BF, all you have to do is claim self defense. I think that's what FarArcher means, and I agree. Edited March 25, 2016 by gigantor 1
Guest ChasingRabbits Posted March 25, 2016 Posted March 25, 2016 It would be a very touchy topic at the time it happens. Keep in mind that historically anyone considered "SubHuman" was not protected by the Homicide laws, easiest examples being Native Americans and Slaves. I think any prosecution would come down to the climate of the state, after the initial type classing is completed. A more liberal state such as California could prosecute whereas someplace like Texas I could see the charges not being filed due to the circumstances. The gravity of such a situation if or when it arises will be enormous, depending on the science behind it. Should it turn out to be similar to us, you'd be looking at a total species wide redefinition of just what exactly is human. I could also though easily see if the conspiracy theories about the government being true, that there could already have been such kills and they have been silenced simply based on "Talk and be prosecuted." Exactly. And that would make a lot of H. sapien sapien very uncomfortable, imo. Not to mention how laws would be re-written.
FarArcher Posted March 25, 2016 Posted March 25, 2016 If you shoot a BF, all you have to do is claim self defense. I think that's what FarArcher means, and I agree. Aye. Even in the presence of loads of varying game laws, game seasons, and game taking territories - there's always exclusions. If your life or safety is threatened, if another's life or safety is threatened, the animal is killing your livestock, or the animal is damaging your property. Wouldn't matter if it was a blue-tailed unicorn - you can legally shoot it. You may argue over possession if it becomes known to game wardens, but you certainly have the right to kill it.
Yuchi1 Posted March 25, 2016 Posted March 25, 2016 ^^^ Unless, you published intent to overtly kill one, then the self-defense position might, well....be shot full of holes? 1
FarArcher Posted March 25, 2016 Posted March 25, 2016 ^^^ Unless, you published intent to overtly kill one, then the self-defense position might, well....be shot full of holes? No, to state the facts is not to declare an intent. Yuchi - you KNOW these things are scary, have the potential to do a lot of damage fast, and that with anything unfamiliar, there's no telling how each meeting engagement may unravel. A fox may be rabid, or skunk, or a bear may be having a bad day, and just become aggressive. I've never hesitated when things look to go South. I get the impression I'm being engaged, it's reflex born out of instinct. So far, it's worked for me. 1
Incorrigible1 Posted March 25, 2016 Posted March 25, 2016 ^^^ Unless, you published intent to overtly kill one, then the self-defense position might, well....be shot full of holes? Send out the sheriff to arrest Yuch1? 1
Recommended Posts