[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Comments like, "You better have some scratch marks if you let if fly" aptly demonstrate the folly of government employees in applying legitimate self-defense concerns to wildlife they begin to value more than people.

In most states, the threshold for use of force in self-defense (or defense of others) is that a reasonable man would be in fear of death or bodily harm if he failed to act. One need not sustain actual injuries to meet this criterion, and waiting until one has sustained this level of injury before applying force is foolish. However, be warned that overzealous government employees may attempt to shift the burden of proof to the party acting in self-defense or defense of others, especially if there is a perceived need to make an example of someone to dissuade other parties from acting similarly.

One need not be an expert in whether the behavior if a given species is genuinely threatening to be justified in self-defense (or defense of others). Once a "reasonable man" would perceive a threat, the use of force is justified. And the courts have consistently ruled that a "reasonable man" need not have specialized technical knowledge, but only need be acting on beliefs common in the general public.

For example, had the bear in the first video begun to climb the tree with the hunter in it or had there been a child in the truck pictured with the bear on the cab, most reasonable men would conclude that the bear likely was a threat to human life. But many unreasonable, idiotic government employees might insist that experts would not infer a threat from the behavior or that a higher burden of proof is needed regarding the threat.

MG;dr

You have some serious issues with government man, serious issues. Rush and Fox News is warping your brain. How scared are you of ebola?

#draconiansanctions