If You Shot One, Would That Be Poaching?

[FarArcher]

Yuchi's good to go.  He believes one thing, and I respect his belief.

 

It's not like he hasn't had these things "interact" with him and his team.
 

I had a conscientious objector medic in one combat unit - and he absolutely hated me.  Just because we never captured any wounded.  

 

But I respected him.  He'd ruck up and head out with us without complaint - and he took more chances to get to the wounded than the law allowed.  He'd call me every kind of blankety-blank he could think of, and I'd just laugh, and tell him to leave the wet work to us, and for him to worry about that doctor stuff. 

 

And had I gotten wounded real good, he'd have risked his life for me.

 

Yuchi is that guy.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Of course there is no proof they are dangerous as no one can prove anyone has been killed.

As far as killing Sasquatch, how's that been going for you. (If they would just STAY still, the pesky buggers).

So naught and aught.

[FarArcher]

There's duplicable, observable scientific proof standards, and then there are historical proof standards.  

 

The first has to be observable, and one must be able to duplicate the observation.  

 

Historical proofs are different as historical events never identically duplicate - so the weight of the evidence is considered proof.  In criminal law, it's called "circumstantial evidence."  In history, of past events and past personalities, we rely on a preponderance of narrative, geographical, and artifact evidence.

 

The historical narratives in North America, Europe, and Asia say that they are violent.  And have been for centuries.

 

Supported by narratives and artifacts.  The same as required and available for the existence of Genghis Khan.  Or the Black Plague.

 

To suggest "there's no proof they are dangerous," is like saying Genghis was a statesman, not a warrior.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

I'm using science, in this instance.

Show me an injured person or documentation such as police and hospital reports.

Stories can't really count as proof, can they?

 

Another point is that anything can be dangerous, including a branch you trip on.

The questions is a dangerous as what, a bear?

 

Overwhelming superiority on the home turf isn't a standard for danger defines.

A high number of casualties are.

 

Hard to make a case for a high number of casualties.

 

I used to read the stories and I can only remember a couple of examples that seemed plausible from the modern era.

 

You could be sure, however, that if anything like that was asserted today it will be all over the bloggosphere.

 

Which makes me guess that some one will now run out to fake that, as well, so as to boost their twitter feed.

[JDL]

I, and others I know, have been menaced by bigfoot.  Doesn't take much more provocation than that,

And whether or not you accept it, that testimony holds value in a court of law should it ever be required.

[FarArcher]

I'm using science, in this instance.

Show me an injured person or documentation such as police and hospital reports.

Stories can't really count as proof, can they?

 

Another point is that anything can be dangerous, including a branch you trip on.

The questions is a dangerous as what, a bear?

 

Overwhelming superiority on the home turf isn't a standard for danger defines.

A high number of casualties are.

 

Hard to make a case for a high number of casualties.

 

I used to read the stories and I can only remember a couple of examples that seemed plausible from the modern era.

 

You could be sure, however, that if anything like that was asserted today it will be all over the bloggosphere.

 

Which makes me guess that some one will now run out to fake that, as well, so as to boost their twitter feed.

 

 

You can't use scientific proof to determine the truth in a historical evidentiary determination.

 

Can you duplicate (as scientific proof requires) a historical event, and then observe the same?  Over and over?  Of course not.  Misapplication of "scientific proof" is not applicable to historical events.  Unless you have a time machine, and multiple sources can go back and independently observe the event of query.  

 

Think about what you just asked for.  A hospital or police report?  Those are narratives.  Subjective narratives, subject to interpretation.  On paper.  You're asking for visual documentation to represent a characteristic

 

Google "Woodwose."  Immediately click on "Images."  There's some documentation from multiple sources, over centuries, indicative on a creature and some of its more notorious behavior.

 

Then, there's the narratives of injuries in and near the Himalayas.  I bet you can find a living narrative of one or two who were injured on video.

 

Some of you ask for scientific proof, and don't even understand the specifics of what constitutes scientific proof - duplicable and observable.  

 

Historical proof is a preponderance of narratives.  Sometimes backed up with descriptive drawings, paintings, carvings, and metallic presses over wood carvings.

 

When a jury in a civil case is given instructions, the judge tells the jurors to examine the weight of the evidence, and consider it as a balance.  Which way does the weight of the evidence lean?

 

I think some are lazy.  I think some who demand certain, specific evidences, are too lazy to dig and determine the truth for themselves, and instead, put up arbitrary conditions of what they would consider "proof," and fail to understand the actual position they've just taken.

 

Rather than say, "show me hospital and police reports," maybe you'd be better served examining narratives over the millennia, from multiple peoples, from multiple continents, and see if the weight of the narratives suggest a strong circumstantial case.

 

After all, we convict murderers on strong circumstantial evidences. 

[Yuchi1]

In civil cases the standard is, ​preponderance of the evidence​.

 

In criminal cases, it is, beyond a reasonable doubt​.

 

The problem in using historical accounts regarding alleged aggressive BF behaviors in order to create a theory of chronic belligerence toward humans is whether you can establish the intelligence level of BF, after the fact. I.E., grizzly bears have a documented record of physical and often lethal aggressive behavior toward humans, usually when provoked (food source competition, protection of cubs, etc.) and crocs have a more established record of stalking, killing & eating humans, as a matter of course. This compares to the overwhelming body of evidence (read: documented encounters) where belligerence of the level displayed by BF is much more restrained and measured. This presents the argument of a higher level of intelligence with forbearance being displayed toward humans that wander into a BF encounter situation out of ignorance. In other words they are "scared" out of the area rather than dispatched as like a lethal threat or food quarry would be viewed.

 

IMO, what all this translates into is you better **** well have compelling evidence of a viscous assault being perpetrated upon you as the basis for deploying lethal force upon the BF otherwise, once the DNA analysis comes back, you might find yourself in a serious legal sticky wicket.  Rationalizations for actions absent evidence to validate them, contained within a solid basis often do not fly well in a courtroom. While fortune may favor the bold, nowadays it may favor disaster should the actual cause and effect engineering of one's actions not be factored into the equation.

[FarArcher]

I'd say when it comes to the belligerence level of the Bigfoot, the jury is still out.  Narratives cut both ways.  Odd disappearances in remote areas.

 

I mean, I had a 1911 on the one running/skiiing toward me, and he came real close.  But I was severely undergunned, and I had two simultaneous threats.  I did find it a bit disconcerting that this one was rapidly approaching me from behind - and it was only out of habit of checking my six that I turned and noted his approach.  No noise at all.

 

Kind of makes me wonder what would have transpired if I'd not turned and picked up on him.  Never saw so much ground being covered with so little effort.

 

Yuchi, I'm not worried about DNA.  Any sane, rational, prudent person could look at the two of us propped up side by side and not one would conclude - in spite of DNA results - that we're even close.  No one.

 

And I personally think they're about half-human.  But half from what?

[Yuchi1]

No noise. That's what J.W. described that night when the alpha male passed by him at ~25 yards, gliding through the timber/opening/timber w/o making a sound and then turning it's shoulder to gaze straight at J.W. as it passed through the opening. On the way home that evening is when J.W. said "I won't be coming back, we don't have enough gun" and he never did.

 

Also, I think they're half human (maternal side) and the other half, yet to be conclusively determined however, the risk such ultimate forensic identification being problematic for the shooter, absent rock-solid evidence of self-defense, is overwhelming.

 

BTW, I'd be there to patch you up in the event things got western however, we'd both likely be in Elysium by then.  

[Guest BDK]

In civil cases the standard is, ​preponderance of the evidence​.

 

In criminal cases, it is, beyond a reasonable doubt​.

 

The problem in using historical accounts regarding alleged aggressive BF behaviors in order to create a theory of chronic belligerence toward humans is whether you can establish the intelligence level of BF, after the fact. I.E., grizzly bears have a documented record of physical and often lethal aggressive behavior toward humans, usually when provoked (food source competition, protection of cubs, etc.) and crocs have a more established record of stalking, killing & eating humans, as a matter of course. This compares to the overwhelming body of evidence (read: documented encounters) where belligerence of the level displayed by BF is much more restrained and measured. This presents the argument of a higher level of intelligence with forbearance being displayed toward humans that wander into a BF encounter situation out of ignorance. In other words they are "scared" out of the area rather than dispatched as like a lethal threat or food quarry would be viewed.

 

IMO, what all this translates into is you better **** well have compelling evidence of a viscous assault being perpetrated upon you as the basis for deploying lethal force upon the BF otherwise, once the DNA analysis comes back, you might find yourself in a serious legal sticky wicket.  Rationalizations for actions absent evidence to validate them, contained within a solid basis often do not fly well in a courtroom. While fortune may favor the bold, nowadays it may favor disaster should the actual cause and effect engineering of one's actions not be factored into the equation.

 

 

All it would take in for a hung jury or acquittal is the Defense to show pictures of a giant hairy hominid with muscle structure that makes Arnold Schwarzenegger look like Fat Albert.    The legalese is all fine and dandy until you show it to 12 people with 0 legal training.  Betty Joe Homemaker would freak out, Joe the Plumber would be scared white.  

 

I'm not saying it would be a slam dunk case but remember even OJ got off in the end.

[FarArcher]

No noise. That's what J.W. described that night when the alpha male passed by him at ~25 yards, gliding through the timber/opening/timber w/o making a sound and then turning it's shoulder to gaze straight at J.W. as it passed through the opening. On the way home that evening is when J.W. said "I won't be coming back, we don't have enough gun" and he never did.

 

Also, I think they're half human (maternal side) and the other half, yet to be conclusively determined however, the risk such ultimate forensic identification being problematic for the shooter, absent rock-solid evidence of self-defense, is overwhelming.

 

BTW, I'd be there to patch you up in the event things got western however, we'd both likely be in Elysium by then.

 

Your associate J.W. sounds like a sane, prudent, careful man.

 

Interesting that you say they may be half human on the maternal side.  

 

Sure have been lots of narratives over the centuries in Europe and North America about human females being taken.

 

Of course, they may just be more tender to eat.  Or  .  .  .

 

And I hear Elysium is nice this time of year.  

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

I, and others I know, have been menaced by bigfoot.  Doesn't take much more provocation than that,

And whether or not you accept it, that testimony holds value in a court of law should it ever be required.

If Human, there are no Bigfoot judges BTW.

Threats as opposed to damage.

Assault and battery minus the battery.

Threat displays happen all the time in traffic and yet I never shot anyone.

 

I'm using science, in this instance.

Show me an injured person or documentation such as police and hospital reports.

Stories can't really count as proof, can they?

 

Another point is that anything can be dangerous, including a branch you trip on.

The questions is a dangerous as what, a bear?

 

Overwhelming superiority on the home turf isn't a standard for danger defines.

A high number of casualties are.

 

Hard to make a case for a high number of casualties.

 

I used to read the stories and I can only remember a couple of examples that seemed plausible from the modern era.

 

You could be sure, however, that if anything like that was asserted today it will be all over the bloggosphere.

 

Which makes me guess that some one will now run out to fake that, as well, so as to boost their twitter feed.

 

 

You can't use scientific proof to determine the truth in a historical evidentiary determination.

 

Can you duplicate (as scientific proof requires) a historical event, and then observe the same?  Over and over?  Of course not.  Misapplication of "scientific proof" is not applicable to historical events.  Unless you have a time machine, and multiple sources can go back and independently observe the event of query.  

 

Think about what you just asked for.  A hospital or police report?  Those are narratives.  Subjective narratives, subject to interpretation.  On paper.  You're asking for visual documentation to represent a characteristic

 

Google "Woodwose."  Immediately click on "Images."  There's some documentation from multiple sources, over centuries, indicative on a creature and some of its more notorious behavior.

 

Then, there's the narratives of injuries in and near the Himalayas.  I bet you can find a living narrative of one or two who were injured on video.

 

Some of you ask for scientific proof, and don't even understand the specifics of what constitutes scientific proof - duplicable and observable.  

 

Historical proof is a preponderance of narratives.  Sometimes backed up with descriptive drawings, paintings, carvings, and metallic presses over wood carvings.

 

When a jury in a civil case is given instructions, the judge tells the jurors to examine the weight of the evidence, and consider it as a balance.  Which way does the weight of the evidence lean?

 

I think some are lazy.  I think some who demand certain, specific evidences, are too lazy to dig and determine the truth for themselves, and instead, put up arbitrary conditions of what they would consider "proof," and fail to understand the actual position they've just taken.

 

Rather than say, "show me hospital and police reports," maybe you'd be better served examining narratives over the millennia, from multiple peoples, from multiple continents, and see if the weight of the narratives suggest a strong circumstantial case.

 

After all, we convict murderers on strong circumstantial evidences. 

 

So we should base scientific level of authentication of "dangerous" on stories.

Unsubstantiated, anecdotal.

What I'm asking for is some one who dies, has a black eye, missing some teeth.

A body, a film clip. something, anything.

Then define dangerous. A spider is dangerous, I am dangerous, a  nuclear weapon is dangerous.

Just because I feel threatened does not mean I am in real danger.

So are Bigfoot threatening, no doubt in my mind (if they exist)

Plenty of anecdotal evidence.

People threaten, as hominids we also establish dominance through threat displays, do we do more?

At least with animals it usually territory, mating, or predication (something logical). 

With people it is debased symbolic logic systems and the associated political and over socialization developed in the last 100,000 years overlaying millions of years of instinctual reactions and what do you get (mass extinctions and large wars, murderous rampages).

Bigfoot should  be so much more worried about us.

He's not though, cause he is pretty good at hiding.

Long as we leave him alone after he scares us off.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[FarArcher]

I agree.  Anecdotal.  No proof of anything.

 

Genghis's boys probably didn't ride horses as we're told.  

 

Genghis was probably just a small time raider.  

 

But those many evidences were just anecdotal as well.

[gigantor]

I think Yuchi1 is attempting to make a case for a general law against shooting a BF and the legal consequences of doing so. But, that assumes the species is accepted and known to science, which it is not.

 

We are simply pointing out that if you kill a BF, it will be judged on a case-by-case basis. A simple self defense claim is enough, specially if a body is obtained and it is all that it is claimed to be: a very large, 8 ft+, powerful monkey-man that could tear you up into pieces.

 

So we are arguing two different scenarios.

Edited March 27, 2016 by gigantor

[TritonTr196]

Since they aren't human in any way nor listed on an endangered species list it wouldn't amount too much. It would never make it to any court and would never even amount to a poaching fine. I mean really, what exactly are you poaching? A mythical creature that isn't supposed to exist. After seeing it they will probably say, Yeah I would have shot it also. Most likely you will just be told to keep quite about it.