As a Juror, would you vote to convict someone that killed a wolf?

[z987k]

Blind obedience to the law without consideration of justice is a dangerous thing, and justice isn't simply the enforcement of law. Just think of the decades of enforcement of Jim Crowe laws. Would any of you "the law is the law" types have voted for those convictions?

Apparently.

And I realize it was actually the complete opposite. Where white southerners were murdering black people and getting off because the all white jury wouldn't convict.

But it still applies. If the law is wrong, you have a duty to not convict as a juror. In the southern thing, if you really think murdering other races should be legal then we have a much larger societal issue.

 

[Squincher]

Apparently.

And I realize it was actually the complete opposite. Where white southerners were murdering black people and getting off because the all white jury wouldn't convict.

But it still applies. If the law if wrong, you have a duty to not convict as a juror. In the southern thing, if you really think murdering other races should be legal then we have a much larger societal issue.

Jim Crowe laws were segregation laws that had no involvement in any murder charge, ever. You know, Rosa Parks being arrested for not giving up her seat on the bus? Two completely different issues.

 

[bummer7580]

I read some chatter online that some people wouldnt vote to convict someone who killed a wolf.

If you were called for jury duty, would you vote to convict?

I doubt I would vote to convict but then I doubt I would be allowed on the jury. I'm from MN and we are being over run by wolves in northern MN. Deer numbers are being hammered and the tree huggers sue in the courts to prevent management of wolves. I'm not sure if the tree huggers or wolves are hated more. Look out Colorado.

 

[Pharmseller]

I’m okay with jury nullification if I believe the law is unjust.

All day.




P

 

[menhaden_man]

Federal wildlife agency investigating wolf killing in northern Wisconsin

It's largely illegal to kill a wolf while the animal is under federal protection

www.superiortelegram.com

 

[MTN BUM]

Well, I agree with your sentiment in theory as someone who works in law-enforcement there’s plenty of picking and choosing going on in all levels. A prime example is our recently newly elected county attorney sent notice out to area agencies of a half dozen laws that he will no longer be prosecuting, some were surprising to say the least.
If CA/DA and law-enforcement can pick and choose I see no reason a jury shouldn’t be granted the same opportunity.

Its ok to pick and choose. Long as you pick the right side...

 

[MattB]

Apparently.

And I realize it was actually the complete opposite. Where white southerners were murdering black people and getting off because the all white jury wouldn't convict.

But it still applies. If the law is wrong, you have a duty to not convict as a juror. In the southern thing, if you really think murdering other races should be legal then we have a much larger societal issue.

But by your own words if a juror thinks the law is wrong in prohibiting whites from killing blacks, you believe they have a duty not to convict. Which is it?

 

[Rich M]

We went from wolves to people? Interesting.

And now we're discussing 100 yrs ago.

 

[Hnthrdr]

I’m

Federal wildlife agency investigating wolf killing in northern Wisconsin

It's largely illegal to kill a wolf while the animal is under federal protection

www.superiortelegram.com

Interesting wonder when it is okay to shoot a woof, being at your backdoor and all, maybe after he comes into the house? Or attacks a pet or child?

 

[mlevimadden]

I’m

Interesting wonder when it is okay to shoot a woof, being at your backdoor and all, maybe after he comes into the house? Or attacks a pet or child?

According to the management plan CPW released, the only legal reason for someone to kill a wolf was in defense of human life. A wolf actively attacking livestock or pets did not qualify for use of lethal force by the public.

Edit: Correction, Livestock owners can use lethal force for wolves "actively biting, wounding, or killing livestock" but have to report the event to CPW within 24 hours and leave all evidence untouched.

 

[Flyjunky]

According to the management plan CPW released, the only legal reason for someone to kill a wolf was in defense of human life. A wolf actively attacking livestock or pets did not qualify for use of lethal force by the public.

If a wolf was attacking my livestock or pet I wouldn’t have a second thought about putting a hole in a wolf.

 

[Hnthrdr]

According to the management plan CPW released, the only legal reason for someone to kill a wolf was in defense of human life. A wolf actively attacking livestock or pets did not qualify for use of lethal force by the public.

I understand that. I would just appreciate a diagram, maybe a picture book put out by the cpw on when “go” time is… like how much of you has to be in the wolfs mouth, I was referring to the case in wisco though that the article was about

 

[mlevimadden]

If a wolf was attacking my livestock or pet I wouldn’t have a second thought about putting a hole in a wolf.

Completely agree, and as a disclaimer, I voted no for the wolf reintroduction.

I was just stating what is listed in the management plan above, not that I agree with it.

Also I just re-read that section and was wrong above. Livestock owners can use lethal force for wolves "actively biting, wounding, or killing livestock" but have to report the event to CPW within 24 hours and leave all evidence untouched.

I was correct that in the case of "Wolves attacking a pet or hunting dog. Lethal control of wolves in the act of or having recently attacked a pet or hunting dog is not allowed in any Phase."

I understand that. I would just appreciate a diagram, maybe a picture book put out by the cpw on when “go” time is… like how much of you has to be in the wolfs mouth, I was referring to the case in wisco though that the article was about

Agreed. I would not want to be the first person to kill a wolf in colorado. Even if you did it in defense of human life, the death threats from the anti-hunting folks, and legal pressure the DA will be under from Polis (and his husband) will not be a good time.

 

[mtwarden]

I was correct that in the case of "Wolves attacking a pet or hunting dog. Lethal control of wolves in the act of or having recently attacked a pet or hunting dog is not allowed in any Phase."

That’s pretty asinine. How many folks would let a pet be ripped to shreds by a wolf and just watch. Wouldn’t think it would be too many.

 

[mlevimadden]

That’s pretty asinine. How many folks would let a pet be ripped to shreds by a wolf and just watch. Wouldn’t think it would be too many.

I mean asinine is a pretty accurate summary of the entire re-introduction and management plan.

When I read the whole plan this was actually the most surprising thing to me. I fully expected it to say hunting wouldn't be allowed in any phase, but was very surprised they didn't allow for defense of pets.

I guess if you're hiking, or just out in the yard, and have your dog within eyesight it probably isn't as hard to justify the human threat if you're killing an aggressive wolf at 20 yards with a sidearm, but would definitely complicate it for hound hunters tracking dogs with GPS, and would be hard to justify shooting a wolf off the porch with a rifle from 100+ yds. They at least categorized working farm dogs as livestock.

I guess the only silver lining is that when the wolves start infringing on urban areas, some of the pro-wolf reintroduction voters might realize how dumb this management plan is when they realize their only recourse for defending their pets is calling CPW.

Here is the link to the management plan if anyone is interested.
https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Wolves/2023-Final-CO-Wolf-Plan.pdf

 

[mlevimadden]

Sorry if I side-tracked the thread @cnelk, but some people's answers might change if the question was "would you vote to convict someone for killing a wolf attacking the family dog out in the yard", which is illegal under the current management plan in Colorado.

 

[mtwarden]

I haven’t paid enough attention, but this reintroduction is Colorado state, not a federal reintroduction? And the wolves introduced are under state protection, not under the federal Endangered Species Act?

Interesting.

We had our reintroduction forced down our throat, not voted in

 

[mlevimadden]

I haven’t paid enough attention, but this reintroduction is Colorado state, not a federal reintroduction? And the wolves introduced are under state protection, not under the federal Endangered Species Act?

Interesting.

We had our reintroduction forced down our throat, not voted in

It is a reintroduction being carried out by the state, the feds gave CPW permission to introduce an experimental population under 10j of the ESA. The experimental population is still protected under the ESA.

The plan calls for moving from State Endangered to State Threatened after wintertime counts of 50+ wolves for four consecutive years. It calls for delisting from the State Threatened and Endangered Species list after 150+ wolves for two consecutive years, or 200+ wolves at any time. But we all know how delisting went in the GYE. They also add this nice little disclaimer at the end of the recovery metrics "Minimum counts for delisting are not intended and should not be interpreted as population objectives or maximum target populations".

It still feels pretty "forced down our throats" when the ballot passed by 0.9% with intentionally vague language, and the governor issued a gag order preventing any CPW employees from commenting on the proposition. Below is the exact wording from the ballot:

"Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning the restoration of gray wolves through their reintroduction on designated lands in Colorado located west of the continental divide, and, in connection therewith, requiring the Colorado parks and wildlife commission, after holding statewide hearings and using scientific data, to implement a plan to restore and manage gray wolves; prohibiting the commission from imposing any land, water, or resource use restrictions on private landowners to further the plan; and requiring the commission to fairly compensate owners for losses of livestock caused by gray wolves?"

 

[mtwarden]

Ahhh- OK, the Feds still hold the hammer then.

Interesting situation—passing by only .9% sounds like maybe more work could have been done

 

[RyanT26]

Yes little to no work was done, CRWM is a lot more organized now and will put up some kind of fight against the lion/bobcat ban

Doesn’t matter now, to little to late. Becoming active on the lion/bobcat ban is trying to fix a pinhole leak after someone punched a hole in the boat big enough to drive a f150 through.
Wolves will never be delisted in Colorado. Same for grizzly’s in Wyoming, the ESA has been weaponized. Unfortunately we are too busy infighting over the scraps or to lazy and stupid to go vote when it matters.
I would be willing to bet the lion/bobcat ban passes.