Guest Luckyfoot Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 The reason I couldn't shoot a Squatch, is that I would be thinking 'it is probably a guy in a suit' And for shooting that, you would be going to jail. Thought about this for a minute, got the wheels turning. Maybe you would go to jail. If a dude is dressed up like an animal in the woods (lets say bigfoot) and gets shot while trying to perpetuate that hoax , how severely would the shooter be charged ? Mistaken identity would be a legitimate defense. Maybe you would be set free and have taught a hoaxer a lesson (or eliminated one). I don't hunt. I don't usually carry a gun. IF I had a nice long gun and a possible bigfoot in my sites and wasn't sure it was a bigfoot or a man in a suit , I would fire a warning shot. Man in a suit would take off suit real fast , no ? I had a thought about the ideal hoax eliminator. Declare open season on bigfoot. Until one is brought in. Knowing that there is an open season, who is going to walk around in a costume ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighunter43 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 If you were out hunting...saw a BF and somehow freaked out and shot it.....and it turned out to be a guy in a suit....I'm sorry, there's not a jury in America that's gonna convict you!! Entirely the guy in the suit's fault...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Don't agree at all. NO papers out, NOTHING proven. Shooting one AND bringing it in would the best scientific evidence , therefore an awesome reason to shoot one. Everything else you mentioned is just emotion , not logic. It's not emotional it's common sense. Nothing proven means you don't know what you are shooting at, period.= unethical. Couple that with the fact it is standing and or running/walking on two feet and probability dictates it is most likely a human being. Smeja relates a great deal of internal conflict over this. He ultimately rejected the thought it was human due to circumstances and took the shot, if we are to believe the story. Whether you agree with the decision or not, he didn't know what he was shooting, his best guess was that it wasn't human, until apparently the little one died in his arms. If you were out hunting...saw a BF and somehow freaked out and shot it.....and it turned out to be a guy in a suit....I'm sorry, there's not a jury in America that's gonna convict you!! Entirely the guy in the suit's fault...... What about the guy in a Gillie suit? how many times could you use that plea? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 #1) Always point the muzzle in a safe direction #2) Treat every gun as if it were loaded #3) BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET AND BEYOND #4) Never put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire. Those are the 4 rules of gun/hunting safety. So, one would have to assume that Justin ignored rule #3, or did he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Stinky Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 I have no doubt the .25-06 is a great gun for just about any big game in Noth America.....I was questioning the "basketball" size exit hole comment (haven't quite seen that from any hunting load.....it would kind of ruin alot of meat if your hunting)....and something's definitely missing from the story about tracking a 600 pound animal thats "crashing" thru the brush....I've tracked wounded deer with my bow for 100's of yards with no blood trail and found them...they leave tracks, dragmarks,etc...pretty sure a wounded BF that's got a fatal wound would leave a pretty good bloodtrail and other stuff easy to follow....I'm not saying it didn't necessarily happen...just some parts leave some "red flags". One of my red flags as well. He mentioned the mushrooming of the round and the devastation of exit hole , if that were the case then shooting the young one at close range in the neck would have surely shattered its vertebrae and killed it on impact then ? Stinky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted July 17, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted July 17, 2012 That rule number 3 there Cotter has been ignored by lots of Hunters down the years, some i recall even when their " target " is wearing orange hunting Vests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 southernyahoo- When I talked to Justin he matter of factly stated that he was sure that the subjects he shot were NOT anything close to a human, just saying. ptangier But isn't his change of heart regarding the incident precisely due to the fact that when the little one was looking up at him, he realized they were similar to humans? I wonder if it had been Patty standing at 80 yards waving her arms, if he would have taken the shot. After all, according to some, most people who see the PGF insist it's a guy in a suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 I was not there but I get the feeling watching the video that the driver knew or had an inkling that this was NOT a bear when he kept telling JS "don't shoot" and JS ignored his pleas. That tells me that JS is either very ignorant or blatantly unaware of how animals, like bears behave and what the hell they look like. Maybe when applying for hunting licenses they should also have you point out that particular animal from a chart before you are issued a license. I do not believe JS when he says he was unaware of the hairy people or their legends and stories all these years. Afterall, he's not a child......... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighunter43 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Unfortunately Bobby is right...I can't imagine someone shooting at something without identifying their target and it happens every year...sad but true...but in ALL those cases you would be hard pressed to find one that wasn't ruled an accident....(never heard of a conviction...even if the guy was wearing a ghillie suit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted July 17, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted July 17, 2012 Well i can't find if he was convicted or not but this Guy got charged, in OR in 2011. http://portlandattorney.wordpress.com/tag/christopher-ochoa/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Occam's razor demands that the most probably explanation is that one of the 300 million Homo Sapiens living in the continental United States that ALREADY possess a FOXP2 gene ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RECORDING. Why is it that when you apply that same logic to a sighted hairy biped which leaves humanlike tracks, humanlike hairs and speaks to shooters, it becomes emotion? I'm just following the evidence here even if some of it is circumstantial and interpretations not always objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Most accidents come from shooting at noises and bushes rustling, an obvious detour from Rule #3. I don't believe that these accidents come from seeing someone wearing orange, THEN thinking it was an animal. Justin admits he saw an animal, and wasn't blasting into brush. So it makes you wonder if he did indeed know exactly what was in his cross-hairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Luckyfoot Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) It's not emotional it's common sense. Nothing proven means you don't know what you are shooting at, period.= unethical. Truth is , it is a grey area. You say it doesn't exist .....but how do we get evidence ? Witnesses -including hunters -have known what they have seen, will swear it was not human. That would be proof enough to take one. You don't need a labreport to tell you are looking at.... until we have conclusive evidence. That might happen when another Mr. Smeja peers down the scope , is certain he's looking at a bigfoot , puts it down and brings it back. If done to prove the species = totally ethical. Edited July 17, 2012 by Luckyfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Now I don't hunt, so I am wondering if hunters might answer this: is is likely that a hunter with Justin's level of experience in at least Texas and California would never have heard of bigfoot since he watched Harry and the Hendersons? Do hunters talk about it or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Well, I don't think that it matters if you are a hunter or not. If you haven't heard of BF, you just crawled out from under a pretty big rock. Now, whether or not he's heard REPORTS of BF in his hunting area....that's different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts