Guest Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Now let me ask all you this and see if you're serious or simply being incorrigible. This will require some imagination and acting: Imagine you are a supervisor in the Division of Forestry (Alaska) and you're called out to an incident. You get there and you find a body that has been torn to pieces. There is one witness being questioned, but the person is very shaken and almost in shock. The account the survivor gives is that a large, hairy, monster walked out of the woods and tore her husband limb from limb because he shot at it. Lets pause here for a moment----Would you then assume that the woman actually means a bear attacked her husband and killed him? Would you be arrogant enough to believe that this woman doesn't know what a "bear" looks like? So you and your officers half inform and half suggest that it was a "bear" and not a monster. The woman looks at you and says it wasn't a bear, it looked more like a giant gorilla. Do you still use arrogance and insist the woman must be mistaken? You now look at the body, and indeed the guy was torn to pieces. Arms ripped off and tossed, legs broken, head removed from trunk. Would you keep it to yourself that there aren't any claw marks? There isn't the typical sign of bear attacks which are bites to the face and head. Instead the head is ripped off. You look at the wounds and see the body wasn't cut or bitten...but the damage suggests the limbs were actually RIPPED off. What would your report look like? Would it say what the young woman said, that the perp was a monster? Or would you say the attack was the work of a bear....though your experience says otherwise? Will you force yourself to not see the large human looking footprints, maybe even scratch them out? I ask...how would you handle this situation, keeping in mind you have a career you're attempting to retire from and you have superiors you have to give your report to. In closing: Will your report state that the victim was killed by a BF/monster or a bear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 This topic has been covered in many different threads prior to this. While I think it will follow the same trajectory I'm leaving it up provided civility and the forum rules are observed by all posters. Thank You for your understanding. Grayjay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BitterMonk Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Honey badger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 You seem hung up on arrogance. The recording leo should report what the witness states. It's as simple as that. BTW, I'm not especially a "skeptic/non-believer." I am extremely dubious of some of the attributes being assigned to the bigfoot creature and of anonymous "reports" one finds on the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 We need a minus button... But seriously, I don't get the OP. Skeptics are skeptics because they do not think there is evidence to support the existence of bigfoot. If they had evidence such as described in the OP right before their eyes there is no reason (except for ill will on their part) to assume they wouldn't change their position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 You seem hung up on arrogance. The recording leo should report what the witness states. It's as simple as that. BTW, I'm not especially a "skeptic/non-believer." I am extremely dubious of some of the attributes being assigned to the bigfoot creature and of anonymous "reports" one finds on the internet. I can conclude that your report would state victim torn to pieces by a "monster"? This is what you would submit to your supervisors? Now, how will you solve this case? Will you indeed begin searching for said "monster"? Would you have any hopes of closing this case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 We need a minus button... But seriously, I don't get the OP. Skeptics are skeptics because they do not think there is evidence to support the existence of bigfoot. If they had evidence such as described in the OP right before their eyes there is no reason (except for ill will on their part) to assume they wouldn't change their position. So short of being the officer on sight, a skeptic will never have evidence? I present this scenario as a reason for why there may be a lack of evidence. I've worked for various agencies and thanks to someone on this forum reminding me, agencies don't like their boats rocked. What law enforcement agency wants a open murder case where the culprit is a "monster"? In the scenario presented, do you think the report will read BF/monster attack or bear attack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 (edited) I can conclude that your report would state victim torn to pieces by a "monster"? This is what you would submit to your supervisors? Now, how will you solve this case? Will you indeed begin searching for said "monster"? Would you have any hopes of closing this case? How would you begin this "case"? Start to finish? Having an example of some SOP procedures would be helpful. IMO a lot of rural depts don't have easy access to the types of forensics seen on CSI so what lab tests would you pick as essential & budget minded? Will also respectfully disagree with the premise regarding Bear or "monster" There are too many other possibilities possible in this senario. Edited June 13, 2011 by grayjay spelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 perhaps a safe answer for an officer w/ a skeptical viewpoint may simply be to record whatever evidence is found then list it as " unknown assailant"...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 perhaps a safe answer for an officer w/ a skeptical viewpoint may simply be to record whatever evidence is found then list it as " unknown assailant"...... Ahhhh the sound of logic and reason to sooth the soul! Slick comes thru again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 How would you begin this "case"? Start to finish? Having an example of some SOP procedures would be helpful. IMO a lot of rural depts don't have easy access to the types of forensics seen on CSI so what lab tests would you pick as essential & budget minded? I'd say that you would have to begin this case as any other case, a possible homicide. After moving past that point, at least after excluding the guys wife, you would look for signs/evidence of perhaps other perps. Perhaps a guy dressed in a monster suit. Here's a crucial fork in the road and where the ball may get dropped alot. The LEA now has to decide rather to go with murder or animal attack. The problem is the route taken will depend upon the individual officers and their chain. If they have half a brain, they can see large inhuman tracks and look at the corpse. Will they actually want to hear what the county coroner will say? The coroner may actually be ANOTHER escape route, because being well versed in science, they will probably ignore the obvious signs of limbs being snapped off instead of chewed off. Will the coroner state the attack was by a bear or "a really strong person"? Without going any farther one can see the multiple forks presented to officers. So the question is, do we think any officer would accept that path which leads to..............a BF investigation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Will also respectfully disagree with the premise regarding Bear or "monster" There are too many other possibilities possible in this senario. I'm a bit confused...what other possibilities would there be in the Alaskan wilderness? Do you mean murder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 perhaps a safe answer for an officer w/ a skeptical viewpoint may simply be to record whatever evidence is found then list it as " unknown assailant"...... Thanks for your reply, and I agree a good deal of officers would go that route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Ahhhh the sound of logic and reason to sooth the soul! Slick comes thru again! How does such a logical and reasonable answer affect the neverending search for evidence of BF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 How does such a logical and reasonable answer affect the neverending search for evidence of BF? You asked the question. I'm just supporting his response and now you want derail your own thread! Go find someone else to argue with I've got better things to do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts