Deer slaughtered in rehabilitation area by 'SWAT' team...

[HeadlessRoland]

Yeah, the problem is they can do it WITHOUT a court.

As for folks and following orders, how about the sickening fact that we idolize folks that were JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS and kill Americans coughPattoncough... (look up the Bonus Army, REAL interesting read...)

Know all about the Bonus Army. between that, Waco, Ruby Ridge, and 9/11, I really don't know how anyone maintains any faith whatsoever in the national Goverment and the fiction that those who belong to it really do have but our best interests at heart.

When Goverment agents acting under "official" color kill a man's livestock on his property, it ceases to matter whether the species are considered nuisance animals. It ceases to matter whether the "law" gives the agents the power to do so. The only thing that matters in this situation is that Goverment has once more overextended its reach onto a man's backyard and deprived him of property without due recompense nor redress, and done so in a very dangerous manner. This is an example of Goverment absolutely and resolutely unanswerable to We the People. This is no less than authoritarian powergrabbing clusterjamming unConstitutional boondoggery, which is all the more dangerous given how many people seem to think it fine that those Goverment warsuits trespassed armed to the hilt onto a man's property and killed his livestock.

This shouldn't be acceptable anywhere in the world claiming to be a free nation, but especially not here in these United States of America, this a Republic where the rule of law matters. Maybe it don't matter in Soviet Russia, comrades, but here you do things legitimate under the color of the Constitutions national and State or you don't do them at all.

What would you do if some guys in SWAT gear show up on your property unannounced? What if your family was home? What if they were aiming toward the house? I guarantee any thoughts you might have about them just doing what they're told and having the legitimate power to do it would vanish into water vapor. Either you get it or you don't but don't let them justify their overstepping the bounds constantly and then whine when they do something later on you don't like. If you didn't speak up early enough to prevent them from doing worse, when they do worse later you have none to blame but yourself. This is an outrage of the highest order, there are but few transgressions more serious than this, none of which should be mentioned in polite company. And may there never come a day when anything like this is tolerated or accepted in our beautiful and great homeland. I've already written Jim and Dick about this and anyone else who will listen. Write every Congressman you can think of, or this will happen more and more.

 

[Sigblaster]

I'm sorry, I meant in light of the actions taken.

Keep a few "extry" dogs (in your adequately fenced back yard) and expect the SWAT team to come a-blastin'?

Nuisciance or not, the actions are not justified. Court or no, the gentleman was apparently deprived of private property without due process.

Again I ask, in what universe should it matter from what he may or may not have been rehabilitating the fallow deer?

It matters because we don't know what the deer were afflicted with or what his qualifications are to determine if they are healthy enough to be released back into the wild.

 

[Lex Concord]

So when was he planning to release them into the wild? And this was so imminent that his restraint and their immediate destruction was the only viable alternative?

I am not arguing against oversight (here, anyway) but I just can't imagine anyone, with a straight face, actually stating that the actions taken were 1) justified, 2) necessary.

Even if he planned to release them in 5 minutes, showing up is enough to stop him...they are fenced, no need to blast away with shotguns.

Maybe regs trump all, including common sense?

 

[rambone]

It matters because we don't know what the deer were afflicted with or what his qualifications are to determine if they are healthy enough to be released back into the wild.

Why is that the government's job to control and monitor? You think people should have to pay the state for a piece of paper to be 'allowed' to care for an animal? Free people don't have to ask permission to do these things.

 

[rabbitdave]

Sigblaster you seem to be more rational about all of this.

I have to say, this is a perfect example of how the news can make a group of people mad. Please step back and think about this from the other side. I have not researched this, nor can I say any of this is true, but lets play a thought game.

I am a DNA officer in the area. I have a man that for 20 years has been releasing deer, some in unknown levels of health, into the public land. I have been in contact with this man every 6 months to check on the status of the deer. But I don't have time to really help this man because of the large area that I cover because of funding cuts. I just want to stop by and make sure the deer are in good health when I can.

The State Government recently enacted a new licensing law that requires special licensing to keep wild deer in captivity. The law was past to cut down on captive hunting. For the past 5 months I have been telling this man that he needs to get the license or I will have to come back and dispose of the deer because they may be in questionable health. The man does nothing. When I show up, he is shocked that I am a man of my word and dispose of the dear with 12 gage buck shot like several other deer are in my area. I feel bad for the deer because the man would not do what needed to be done.

Does this change in perspective change how you feel about the whole situation. This is so one sided reporting aimed at making people mad. True reporting would have a part with the officer stating his case, but I figure it would not have made a "good" story when you hear about the methodical nature that officers had to go through to get to this point.

If you are really mad about this, take some time to research this and see if the above what if is true. Then post up what you found out before you go out guns waving and get someone hurt.

 

[rambone]

I am a DNA officer in the area. I have a man that for 20 years has been releasing deer, some in unknown levels of health, into the public land. I have been in contact with this man every 6 months to check on the status of the deer. But I don't have time to really help this man because of the large area that I cover because of funding cuts. I just want to stop by and make sure the deer are in good health when I can.

The State Government recently enacted a new licensing law that requires special licensing to keep wild deer in captivity. The law was past to cut down on captive hunting. For the past 5 months I have been telling this man that he needs to get the license or I will have to come back and dispose of the deer because they may be in questionable health. The man does nothing. When I show up, he is shocked that I am a man of my word and dispose of the dear with 12 gage buck shot like several other deer are in my area. I feel bad for the deer because the man would not do what needed to be done.

Sounds like there isn't enough real crime to justify government's bloated existence, so it invents new reasons to inject themselves into citizens' lives.

 

[Sigblaster]

Why is that the government's job to control and monitor? You think people should have to pay the state for a piece of paper to be 'allowed' to care for an animal? Free people don't have to ask permission to do these things.

These are not dogs. These are game animals and they belong to all of the people. The government manages these animals on behalf of the people. They manage them in a way that promotes the health and continued existence of the population. They regulate hunting in order to control the population and reduce the nuisance factor of these animals.

Free people know that some regulation, subject to constitutional restrictions, is required to achieve certain ends.

 

[Sigblaster]

Sounds like there isn't enough real crime to justify government's bloated existence, so it invents new reasons to inject themselves into citizens' lives.

There is a difference between a government injecting themselves into a citizens life, and the citizen inviting the goivernment in.

 

[rambone]

There is a difference between a government injecting themselves into a citizens life, and the citizen inviting the goivernment in.

Invited them? Its not like he was entering City Hall with a deer on a leash. These guys marched onto HIS property, into his fenced in sanctuary, and shot them. I guess I don't see where the invitation comes from.

These are not dogs. These are game animals and they belong to all of the people. The government manages these animals on behalf of the people.

Dogs, deer, I fail to see the difference. Animals fenced inside a man's property cease to belong to anyone but him. Just because some people hunt wild deer, somewhere else, does not preclude this man from owning his own deer. They were his property, destroyed without due process.

 

[RockofStrength]

Invited them? Its not like he was entering City Hall with a deer on a leash. These guys marched onto HIS property, into his fenced in sanctuary, and shot them. I guess I don't see where the invitation comes from.


Dogs, deer, I fail to see the difference. Animals fenced inside a man's property cease to belong to anyone but him. Just because some people hunt wild deer, somewhere else, does not preclude this man from owning his own deer. They were his property, destroyed without due process.

This is the primary issue. The man was not given the ability to protest or contest the issue: in fact he was unaware of the problem until the officers showed up with shotguns at the ready.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

These are not dogs. These are game animals and they belong to all of the people. The government manages these animals on behalf of the people. They manage them in a way that promotes the health and continued existence of the population. They regulate hunting in order to control the population and reduce the nuisance factor of these animals.

Free people know that some regulation, subject to constitutional restrictions, is required to achieve certain ends.

Your statement is not only an untrue farce but illustrates that you have no idea what being free people truly means, Sir.
Free people do not ask permission to keep pets or livestock.

 

[hornadylnl]

Your statement is not only an untrue farce but illustrates that you have no idea what being free people truly means, Sir.
Free people do not ask permission to keep pets or livestock.

But they're the King's deer.

 

[Sigblaster]

Your statement is not only an untrue farce but illustrates that you have no idea what being free people truly means, Sir.
Free people do not ask permission to keep pets or livestock.

Again, they are not pets or livestock, they are game animals. They belong to the people and he stole them from us. They should have locked him up instead of leaving him standing there crying like a sissy over a couple of dead deer.

You and rambone speak of the meaning of freedom, but not of responsibility. What do you know of freedom? How have you paid the bill for yours?

 

[ATOMonkey]

Again, they are not pets or livestock, they are game animals. They belong to the people and he stole them from us. They should have locked him up instead of leaving him standing there crying like a sissy over a couple of dead deer.

You and rambone speak of the meaning of freedom, but not of responsibility. What do you know of freedom? How have you paid the bill for yours?

Oh no he di'int!!!

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Guys, feeding trolls just encourages them.

 

[steveh_131]

Again, they are not pets or livestock, they are game animals. They belong to the people and he stole them from us. They should have locked him up instead of leaving him standing there crying like a sissy over a couple of dead deer.

You and rambone speak of the meaning of freedom, but not of responsibility. What do you know of freedom? How have you paid the bill for yours?

 

[Taylorz71]

But they're the King's deer.

Amen. I do love tyranny - can we get some more please?

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Again, they are not pets or livestock, they are game animals. They belong to the people and he stole them from us. They should have locked him up instead of leaving him standing there crying like a sissy over a couple of dead deer.

You and rambone speak of the meaning of freedom, but not of responsibility. What do you know of freedom? How have you paid the bill for yours?

Sorry, komrade, either it belongs to him or it belongs to no one.
This notion of public property is asinine, especially concerning livestock.
What exactly is he responsible for? Safely keeping his own animals under confinement in his own yard on his own property at his own expense?

"What we have here is failure to communicate"

 

[loony1]

wow, it takes shooting the dog to an all new level.

 

[RockofStrength]

Again, they are not pets or livestock, they are game animals. They belong to the people and he stole them from us. They should have locked him up instead of leaving him standing there crying like a sissy over a couple of dead deer.

You and rambone speak of the meaning of freedom, but not of responsibility. What do you know of freedom? How have you paid the bill for yours?

Neither the government nor the people own wild game. If I choose to catch a 'coon, squirrel, deer etc and raise it as my own, I'm well within my rights to do so. The government merely manages their populations to ensure that these unowned animals are not either destroyed by excessive hunting or permitted to have ecologically destructive population explosions.

They didn't even slaughter his deer for that: it was merely that he didn't pay his money to get a license he didn't know he even needed owing to a recent change in the law. The officials did not deign to give him so much as a warning before destroying hundreds of dollars worth of cared-for and quite possibly 100% healthy livestock.