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

I have no problem with cops being held to a higher standard EE.

I'm trying to establish how low of a standard other people are held to.

Rancher's lives matter.

As I said,it depends on the area and the people of that area..For instance,if I were to go out and blow a .081(roughly 4 beers) and get a DUI,everyone would laugh and say I told you so but if I went out and poached a big Elk,I would expect to get the $hit knocked out of me multiple times by multiple people.

It would totally depend on the crime committed as to how the population in these parts looked at it.

Oh, so that's why.

I think I do. And you haven't shown where I'm wrong.


But, HERE is where we are right now. One of the Cop/Members here only had to view the video to pronounce the cop wrong. Are you interested in seeing it?

Obeying the law is the lowest standard "other people" should be held to. We just want the police to also be held to the same low standard. It seems as though the cops are continually striving to go lower. That's why there's a lower standard for murder when it involves the cops.

Does that answer the question you really don't want to hear the answer to?

The police do, as a matter of fact, get a much higher level of protection under the law, than does the general public.

As do all officers of the court.

One can not deny the increased effort for the apprehension of a suspected killer of a LEO, judge, or prosecuting attorney.

I, for one, feel that such enhanced protection should be accompanied by enhanced behavior.

It is SOP in this nation to hold a person in authority to a higher level of scrutiny than an average citizen.

There is an enhanced penalty for the teacher who molests or abuses a student vs the typical child molester. The same is true of preists vs the general public.

We have rules and laws which prohibit undue contact between a physician and a vulnerable patient.

And, if I am not mistaken, it is a felony for a Corrections Officer to have intimate contact with his wards.

That the public expects a police officer to abide by a higher code of conduct than the typical citizen abides by should come as no surprise to any seasoned officer.

I was under the impression that each officer actually swears to do so upon taking up the badge.

No.

No freakin' duh. Nobody argued against any of that.

I want to know what laws lumberjacks are allowed to break, how often they can break them, and what other professions are held to a similarly low standard of behavior.

I'm not surprised you don't understand. You don't want to understand, you're here to argue, demean the victim and defend your fellow brothers in blue. It's unfortunately who you are.

No. I've experienced enough death and despair to not need another video of it. I'm sure of several things......
1-The video depicts something tragic.
2-The tragic video doesn't contain all of the tragicness of what happened.
3-My opinion of the tragicness ultimately won't matter a hill of beans to anyone here.

I'm not surprised I don't understand your point of view either. That's why I'm asking questions. I've already made that clear.

If you'd like to point out where I've demeaned the victim or defended the cops feel free to. I haven't, but if you feel better thinking that I have then feel free to.

"....and what other professions are held to a similarly low standard of behavior."

None. That's the point. Cops are held to reasonable standards and constantly prove to not abide such standards.

You're good with poaching and wastage and lying to investigators as long as a cops as.s is on the line. Some of us are saying that it's not okay even if a cops as.s is on the line. There is a difference which you're either unwilling to see or too fu.cking stupid to see. I think both.

You cops were willing to indict Mr. Yantis because of a decades old DUI but won't be consistent with your hatred towards law breakers when the cops are the ones with more extensive and recents criminal convictions.

Loggers, farmers, teachers, grocery store clerks, and stock boys shall all be expected to abide by the rule of law. Or they shall expect to be arrested and serve the sentence handed down through the courts.

To keep matters in perspective, illegal harvest of game and malicios waste of game are citation offenses. While DUI is a misdemeanor at least and possibly a felony. (though I do not think it was a felony offense in the case under discussion.

Still, any LEO whom deliberately transgresses game laws is showing obvious contempt for the law he has sworn to uphold.

Here's a link to the Texas Penal Code Chapter 2 (Burden Of Proof).... http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm


The prosecution has to prove your guilt. That would be rather easy to do in many cases, especially self defense cases. This is what they'd have to prove for murder. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm


But as they're trying to throw you in prison you can say, "Hey, y'all....This is why I killed that guy." http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm



So no, you DO NOT have to prove your innocence. Being asked, "Why did you shoot that guy?" is not shifting the burden of proof to you.

And by offering an explanation of what happened you don't have to prove your innocence anyway, but it's an opportunity for the jury to evaluation your explanation and have reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case.

The justifications in Chapter9 aren't a list of things you have to prove. They're a list of reasons you can shoot someone. You don't have to prove that you're innocent. But if you are, it would make sense to explain to someone why you killed the bad guy.

Those quotes are in the handbook I got years ago when I got my CHL.

There is a difference between presumption of innocence and a defense against prosecution.

If I deny killing someone, I don't even have to offer a defense. The prosecution must prove me guilty...... the burden is on them.

If I don't contest the fact that I killed someone, I can claim self-defense as MY defense against prosecution, but the burden is on me. There is certainly no presumption of self-defense. I have to make statements and provide evidence that it was a self defense situation.

If you think a cop doesn't have a tremendous edge over a non-cop in self defense shootings that would be a ridiculous assertion.

So do you still believe that to be found not-guilty you have to prove that you're innocent?

Yes, moron.

You've adeptly slung your stupidity enough on this thread.

When the prosecution proves a death, and argues (with or without justification, but that's for a jury to decide), that you shouldn't have killed the dumb SOB, the burden shifts to the DEFENDANT to prove that the shooting was justified, Stoolhead for brains.

So, if cur shoots some SOB that deserved it, he can get arrested and prosecuted.

Only a jury, and thousands of dollars, can set him free.

Since you're too big a pu$$y to watch the video, I'll use this example for argument:

1 - Somebody rolls their auto late at night on a public road;

2 - curdog drives up on the scene;

3 - curdog approaches the vehicle to try and help whoever needs it;

4 - the driver of the rolled auto, laying on its side, stands up through the passenger window to exit the rolled vehicle;

5 - curdog shoots the mfer dead.

6 - curdog picks up the ejected shells, to hide the crime;

7 - curdog fails to mention to the arriving EMTs that he just happened to shoot someone.

Does cdog get arrested?

Bet your bluedreaux he does.

Does he get prosecuted?

Bet your bluedreaux he does.

Does your ex-spurt opinion differ, in this fact situation?

Do you have to prove that you're innocent to be found not-guilty?

The answer is "no". No matter what CD read in a pamphlet or what video of a car wreck you watched, the answer is going to be "no".

As for the rest of whatever that was, I have no idea what you're talking about. If you're asking me if Gene should go to jail my answer is definitely "no", he's a swell guy.

Here's a hint. In order to be found guilty the prosecutor must prove his case......

Beyond A __________ _____.

Now ask yourself again, in order to be found not-guilty....Do you have to prove that you're innocent?