Smokin Joe NOT GUILTY!!!

[Keeleclimber]

The facts were presented and the charges were dropped.
Pathetic statements from the prosecutors, Dave H*nna and his crew made themselves look ridiculus on stand, not to mention lying under oath.

Here is the CTV report:
http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...ub=CalgaryHome

After all the hardships and costs related to being charged for killing an aggressive bear in self defence, folks will think twice about trying to do the right thing and report such an incident to the authorities.
Seems to me the SSS system was only promoted by this whole deal.
Aswell,
The public needs to be aware of the "bear conditioning" that the Conservation Officers in K country are up to. These guys are harrasing these bears to the point were they have no respect or fear for man.
Two specific bears of the many involved in such treatments are the ones that:
-Showed serious aggression towards Joe resulting in the death of the bear.
-Chased and pulled hiker from a tree near Canmore then killed her. This Bear had been "treated" the morning of the ladies death!

These guys must be held accountable for there involvement with these problem bears.
I encourage everyone to research this bear conditioning program, the results speak for themselves.

[Grizzly Adams]

http://www.canmoreleader.com/Article...aspx?e=1128560
Grizz

[James Henry]

I'm all for bear conditioning, right after bear shampooing and the taxidermist delivering the hide Problem bears will continue to be problem bears...

[whitetailhntr]

Friend of mine was at the trial.She said the judge was pretty disgusted with the prosecution and parks people.The forensics showed the bear was 14 meters away when shot...to close for comfort as the judge seen it...Waste of his time and taxpayers money.Case closed.

It's a friggin bear,,,some people will never have a clue. That's all i got to say about that!

[duffy4]

Originally Posted by whitetailhntr

Friend of mine was at the trial.She said the judge was pretty disgusted with the prosecution and parks people.The forensics showed the bear was 14 meters away when shot...to close for comfort as the judge seen it...Waste of his time and taxpayers money.Case closed.

It's a friggin bear,,,some people will never have a clue. That's all i got to say about that!

It's a friggin bear,,,some people will never have a clue. That's all i got to say about that!
What is that supposed to mean? You see a bear you shoot it who cares?

I don't know the details of this case but anyone shooting a grizzly out of season should be investigated. If it is obviously self defence then so be it. If it is NOT obviously self defence then charges should be laid and it goes to court. When one is found not guilty it means one of two things.

1. the party was inocent

2. there was not sufficient evidence to convict.

As i said I do not know enough about this case to surmise one or the other.

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by duffy4

It's a friggin bear,,,some people will never have a clue. That's all i got to say about that!
What is that supposed to mean? You see a bear you shoot it who cares?

I don't know the details of this case but anyone shooting a grizzly out of season should be investigated. If it is obviously self defence then so be it. If it is NOT obviously self defence then charges should be laid and it goes to court. When one is found not guilty it means one of two things.

1. the party was inocent

2. there was not sufficient evidence to convict.

As i said I do not know enough about this case to surmise one or the other.

Duffy, I think "Its just a friggen Bear" means that a human life is a bit more important than a "FRIGGEN BEAR"

14 meters is WAY WAY WAY to close for me.

I have been inside that zone 2 times now on these Animals. If either Animal had chose to have me for dinner.. It would have been over for me.

Good on Lucas for waiting that long. I doubt I would have had the self controll

Jamie

[pogo]

Originally Posted by duffy4

It's a friggin bear,,,some people will never have a clue. That's all i got to say about that!
What is that supposed to mean? You see a bear you shoot it who cares?

I don't know the details of this case but anyone shooting a grizzly out of season should be investigated. If it is obviously self defence then so be it. If it is NOT obviously self defence then charges should be laid and it goes to court. When one is found not guilty it means one of two things.

1. the party was inocent

2. there was not sufficient evidence to convict.

As i said I do not know enough about this case to surmise one or the other.

Sounds like the Judge thinks the people laying the charges need their eyes and heads examined. He obviously has no confidence in their ability to make a reasonable determination of self defense. I'm glad he handed them a ruddy good spanking in his judgment. Undoubtedly, the cement between their ears will affect their hearing. Maybe some day they'll get their heads out of their colons long enough to do us all a favour and wise up. In a word, disgraceful.

The facts? The facts presented are now public.

[shortaction]

Originally Posted by duffy4

It's a friggin bear,,,some people will never have a clue. That's all i got to say about that!
What is that supposed to mean? You see a bear you shoot it who cares?

I don't know the details of this case but anyone shooting a grizzly out of season should be investigated. If it is obviously self defence then so be it. If it is NOT obviously self defence then charges should be laid and it goes to court. When one is found not guilty it means one of two things.

1. the party was inocent

2. there was not sufficient evidence to convict.

As i said I do not know enough about this case to surmise one or the other.

It means only one thing - the party was and is innocent.

We are innocent until proven guilty not the other way around, if "there was not sufficient evidence to convict" then the party is not guilty therefore they are innocent.