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

[OutwardBound]

Did anyone catch CTV's report on the story. That station drives me nuts there terminology, regarding hunters. They obviously do not agree with hunting, and are out to give us all a bad name.

I beleive it was Barb Higgans, who said " the charges against Joe Lucas for illegally hunting grizzly bears have been dropped"

He was not hunting grizzly bears they were at camp and a grizzly came to close, I bet anyone with a gun, hunter or not, would shoot a grizzly if it was that close and not leaving.

I'd like to see the look on Barb's face with a grizzly 14 yards away, and how fast she would be yelling shoot it shoot it.

Dustin

[thundergrey]

Originally Posted by CBRHunter

Did anyone catch CTV's report on the story. That station drives me nuts there terminology, regarding hunters. They obviously do not agree with hunting, and are out to give us all a bad name.

I beleive it was Barb Higgans, who said " the charges against Joe Lucas for illegally hunting grizzly bears have been dropped"

He was not hunting grizzly bears they were at camp and a grizzly came to close, I bet anyone with a gun, hunter or not, would shoot a grizzly if it was that close and not leaving.

I'd like to see the look on Barb's face with a grizzly 14 yards away, and how fast she would be yelling shoot it shoot it.

Dustin

but thats what he was charged with wasnt it? Hunting a bear out of season? It would be nice if they added, "the charges against Joe Lucas for illegally hunting grizzly bears have been dropped and the death of the bear was deemed necessary for self defense"

[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.

[elkfriend]

What I want to know, is whether the crown had at least the decency to reimburse Joe for the thousands of bucks that he is probably out for legal defense etc., including the many hours work and preparation for this ridicoulus trial.

The Judge clearly ruled that Joe did the right thing and obviously the Judge did not agree with charges laid. That means that the charges were wrong. So the people who wrongfully laid the charges should foot the bill.

[duffy4]

Originally Posted by pogo

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.

Where can I see the facts of the case as well as the ruling and reaction of the judge?

[stonecrazy]

I agree with elkfriend to, unfortunatly fish and game is run by the government and the substantial lawyer fees would only be paid by every taxpaying citizen!!! the court should hold the CO's who were involved in charging joe accountable for court costs. That would make conservation officers much more observant of given situations.

[thundergrey]

Originally Posted by duffy4

Where can I see the facts of the case as well as the ruling and reaction of the judge?

should be published on the "Queens Bench" sometime...

http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/Court...1/Default.aspx

[Young Eldon]

Sounds like we all lost on this incident:
Grizzly died.
Joe and family lost time, peace of mind, joy of trip, cash, etc.
COs and others lost public support, confidence, etc.
Judge thinks most of it was a waste.
Several members here on this board seem to have decided that SSS is the sensible solution.
Perhaps we need to take home some other lessons from this experience as well. Joe and party members may have been able to do more to avoid this confrontation since I was told the bear had been seen in the area well ahead (hours and several minutes immediately prior)of the shooting. Some possible actions that may have saved the day include:
Carry and use Bear Spray not just rifles.
Fire warning air horn and/or shots.
Climb trees.
Leave the site when it was first learned that the bear was in the area.
Set up electric fence around the camp.
Some of these options may have been tried (there seems to be a dearth of information in this regard) and none of them may have worked in this case but they have all worked for many people in similar situations. My guess is that Joe and company may give them higher priority on their future trips. As we all should! Use of lethal force is sometimes warranted but due diligence to avoid these kinds of confrontations demands more preparation and trying of other options first if at all possible.
Those of us that think aversive conditioning of bears causes more problems than it solves need to realise that it does not claim to solve all future problems with a given bear. Everyone realizes that some bears are likely incorrigible and need removal. That does not mean we can quit being responsible for our own actions and welfare in bear habitat. Spending our time trying to blame others for these wrecks would likely be better spent trying to figure out ways we can personally reduce the risks of them happening again.

[gramps73]

Elkfriend
well said, all i can say is that bear would have not got that close to any of my kids..
Gramps

[Grizzly Adams]

I love that, Leave the area when a bear is sighted. May as well stay home, if that's the case.
Grizz

[pogo]

Originally Posted by duffy4

Where can I see the facts of the case as well as the ruling and reaction of the judge?

From the court clerk. Now you're on your own.

[pogo]

Originally Posted by Young Eldon

Joe and party members may have been able to do more to avoid this confrontation since I was told the bear had been seen in the area well ahead (hours and several minutes immediately prior)of the shooting.

You like my cement analogy, do you?

[DJS]

Very nice to know that there are a few judges left who use a little common sense in making a decision. Common sense now a days aint too common.

[duffy4]

Well said Eldon. Looking at the BIG PICTURE.

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by duffy4

Well said Eldon. Looking at the BIG PICTURE.

Well, I don,t know about that. I, for one, am looking at THE REALLY BIG PICTURE. Granted, there may have been ways to avoid this situation but as they say, hindsight is 20/20. Hopefully, I'll never find myself in a similar situation, but in the event, I don't want to find myself running legal arguments through my mind, as I decide wether, I'd better "get one in him" , to quote Joe Lucas, or for forfeit my life and that of those, with me. There were at least two experienced people there, in agreement, and the consensus was that there was a real threat. A conviction would have set a precedent, one each and every one would have to consider, in the future.
Grizz

[duffy4]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

Well, I don,t know about that. I, for one, am looking at THE REALLY BIG PICTURE. Granted, there may have been ways to avoid this situation but as they say, hindsight is 20/20. Hopefully, I'll never find myself in a similar situation, but in the event, I don't want to find myself running legal arguments through my mind, as I decide wether, I'd better "get one in him" , to quote Joe Lucas, or for forfeit my life and that of those, with me. There were at least two experienced people there, in agreement, and the consensus was that there was a real threat. A conviction would have set a precedent, one each and every one would have to consider, in the future.
Grizz

You say you are looking at the BIG PICTURE but you are really focusing on the MOMENT that you feel a bear is a threat.

As Young Eldon pointed out, perhaps some electric fence around this and other camp areas would have taught this bear to keep away from camps. Then the MOMENT would not arrive.

Sometimes no matter what you do to avoid a bad situation it arrives. However the more you do the less chance it will and the less preventative action you take the better tha chances of a "wreck"

"I love that, Leave the area when a bear is sighted. May as well stay home, if that's the case."

Thinking small again.

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by duffy4

You say you are looking at the BIG PICTURE but you are really focusing on the MOMENT that you feel a bear is a threat.

As Young Eldon pointed out, perhaps some electric fence around this and other camp areas would have taught this bear to keep away from camps. Then the MOMENT would not arrive.

Sometimes no matter what you do to avoid a bad situation it arrives. However the more you do the less chance it will and the less preventative action you take the better tha chances of a "wreck"

[

Thinking small again.

The problem is that when that moment arrives, everything that happened before that, is irrelevant and we don't know what measures were taken to avoid a bear encounter. COLOR="Blue"]"I love that, Leave the area when a bear is sighted. May as well stay home, if that's the case."[/COLOR] By that statement, I meant that every time you go into Grizzly habitat, the possibility is that a bear is not far away, wether you see him, or not. If you do have the good luck to see him, at least you have an advantage over him and don't end up like the guy, just across the highway, from us. Prudence dictates that we minimize that risk, but it's always there and either we accept it, or stay home .
Grizz

[shortaction]

It was a bad, aggressive BEAR and it is likely a really good thing it was destroyed as this situation may have happened to others who where not in a position to protect themselves (not armed) and very likely would have been fatal!

I certainly don't want to see a beautiful, majestic animal destroyed for no reason but even after all the time the prosecution took to prepare their case they where not even close to proving the charges.

We can't humanize wild animals, they do not understand right or wrong only what nature has built into them!

[Keeleclimber]

There must be no tolerance for problem bears. The Conservation officers of Kananaskis are creating problem bears with their conditioning BS.
Electric fence only works the first few times, then they dont care. Up north in caribou camp theres 6 foot high, 7 strand eletric fences and that still dont stop'em.
As Joe said, it was sure alot easier to go to court rather than to a funeral.
I bet the families who have recently barried loved ones killed by problem bears would agree.
I aint taking no alternate measures when it comes to dealing with a problem bear, you can have your pepper spray,bells, tree climbing and electric fence, I'll take my gun,and you will never hear a word of it.

[TreeGuy]

It's funny how the 'Monday Morning Quarterbacks' always have the right answers...........

Congrats to Joe for being CONFIRMED innocent. I for one hope he lawyers up and launces a counter-suit for costs, mental anguish, etc. Agenda based witch hunts must pay the price or we are all screwed.

I believe that the only tangible thing to come out of this foolishness is the fact that SSS is the ONLY policy! I take every possible precaution in grizz country, as I have a family to support. If I have to take a 'friggin bears' life, I will without batting an eye. Then I will bury the ******** and keep my mouth shut!

After all of this BS, why on Earth would I take the chance of reporting the kill? Can anyone justify reporting a shoot to me?

I don't want to be in the situation of having to save my own life from an animal only to have it destroyed by agenda driven parasites afterward!

This does NOTHING to help the grizz in terms of database development. People should lose their jobs over this gross miscarriage of justice.

Tree

[Keeleclimber]

Well said Tree!!

[whitetailhntr]

Originally Posted by keeleclimber

well said tree!!

x 10

[duffy4]

I thought permoting breaking the law was against board rules here.

"well said" and "X10" would be accessories to the offence.