Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Idaho rancher killed by deputies over a wounded bull.

at this point, is there any EVIDENCE, credible evidence, one way or the other, that anyone here would trust?

It sounds like it does stink, but I've looked at things before and come to a decision before I knew the whole story....only later to hear important details that changed everything.

How can you possibly justify throwing a 60 year old woman down and cuffing her when she is rushing to her just shot husband?

Don't know, I'm not trying to. Just waiting to hear the rest of the story.

Cops innocent, civilians guilty.

NEXT....

And how often have you seen L.E. withhold evidence that put them in a good light in a high profile incident?

There is little doubt that you will "hear important details" in the ISP report.

Whether they are believable to a critical observer is another matter.

Cops ARE civilians, you know.

Just like garbage men. Except the garbage men have a more dangerous job.

I read yesterday where the first cop to the scene in San Bernadino arrived and sat in his car for two minutes waiting for backup to arrive. He wouldn't or wasn't allowed to go in alone. I don't think I could sit for two minutes thinking people were being murdered inside when I could save some.

Honestly, I hope what I read isn't true. It bothers me. If it is, that's a problem. If it is true, I'm sure it's "prudent" or dept policy or some such. I wouldn't make a good cop under those circumstances.

I'd be going in that building before my patrol car had rolled to a stop. It's not just a job, it's about serving people. If you are in to write tickets and slap around old women, you're in the wrong profession.

Do you really think that their attorney, the attorney who is in it for the money, is going to release a full and honest statement?

You don't think he is going to craft the statement that puts his clients in the best position to get a cash settlement that he gets his 33.3 percent of?

I wouldn't be quick to blame the individual cop for waiting. I'm sure it is his department's policy to wait for backup. It's probably a wise policy.

The SWAT Teams in Paris waiting outside for thirty minutes while listening to the murders taking place inside.......... THAT'S a different story.

In the military, let's say your column is strung out a mile with guys spaced fifty yards apart. You outnumber the enemy something like three-to-one and it will be easy to overcome them. You can't just keep marching into their fire though. You have to have a rally point and then attack en-masse in order to win. You aren't going to do the people inside any good by becoming a casualty.

The problem with ALICE training and lots of other best practices or policies is their static nature in a fluid situation. It's difficult to maintain control over your assets though, without such things, especially in the age of litigation.

Do YOU really think that greedy attorney is going to let them release a statement they can't swear to at a later date?

THAT'S the importance of a vetted statement. I'm surprised you didn't know that

what does the attorney do to vet an account like these in the absence of investigatory material being released?

In this case, does he simply get everyone to say non-contradictory statements in order to alleviate that level of challenge?

To that extent, isn't it just a statement that has been polished?

It is HIS statement. Not theirs. They will have to testify to what happened, not him. The prior statement that the attorney released could POSSIBLY be used to impeach their testimony, but the bottom line is the attorney's statement is his opinion of what happened, it is not testimony, and it doesn't lay out from which witnesses he is drawing his opinion.

It is a statement to the media, it doesn't have any legal weight.


His statement is clearly not a full disclosure, he completely glosses over the fact that YANTIS discharged his rifle. We don't know the circumstances yet as to that discharge, but it is TELLING to me that he completely avoids mentioning it. That right there tells you that he is not trying to give a full picture of what happened.

He is being smart as far as Mr. Yantis shooting his rifle. Make the deputies give their version of his rifle firing first.

They will do that as part of the ISP investigation.

There is always a chance that the two deputies will disagree about what happened. One may even tell the truth if it saves HIS ass.

I guess what I am saying is you have made up your mind due in large part based on what the family's talking head has thrown out to the media, and now you agree it is only a partial accounting of events, manipulated by him to suit his purposes, that is what lawyers do after all.

Guess he is manipulating more that just the statement.

I keep getting the opinion that these two deputies carried some baggage from some of the locals opinions.



Believe it or not,I do have an open mind on this thing..I just can't imagine what could have happened that warranted the death of the rancher or the rough treatment of his wife or the inability of an FBI trained sniper to put down a wounded bull.

I'm sure ISP will get the facts straight in this supposedly, he said/she said tragedy.The deputies say.....The witnesses/family say....How can they be so different...

In 5 days we know the life time stories of the foreign terrorist shooters in California, yet we still don't know if even one video camera was used during this killing.

Or why so many lives were ruined over a dead bull, the silence is deafening.No one is going to be happy when or if the facts are ever known.

If a Cop gets fired for beating up a sick 80 year old Man, that town/city is saying you ain't fit to be a Cop here....and rightly so.

How the hell can another town/city say we don't care about that, you can be a Cop here.

That's a nice try at the old liberal "deflection" ploy. Make it about the Lawyer.

Fact is, the wife and nephew had told their stories long before the Lawyer released the statement.

They won't find any of the Lawyer's bullets in Mr. Yantis's body.