-bowfreak-
WKR
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2015
- Messages
- 514
I don't have an opinion on this but this topic makes me think of Megadeth.
In my case, and since that was my thread, I've tagged them all but one.It's always legal if you have a tag and place said tag on the animal you shot. Case closed.
The judge won't be happy, but jury nullification is a thing for a reason.Juries are not instructed to pass judgement based on moral high grounds. They are supposed to simply decide whether or not a law was broken. If it's illegal to euthanize a wild animal and you did so without express permission from state authorities...
That brings up an interesting point.I agree with those purporting the prioritization of morals. I would just add that when you make the decision to be moral you also are taking responsibility for the consequences. You should have no issue standing before a judge and owning what you did and why you did it.
A persons beliefs and standards are not held universally, and as such just because you believe you've acted with justification doesn't make it so.That brings up an interesting point.
Are you implying one should be content to be prosecuted (nay, persecuted) for doing the right and moral thing ?
Should any moral-minded person be accepting of a system that rewards immoral behavior?
I take issue with that. I would take issue with that in front of the Government Enforcer who would insist (with force if necessary) I go before a judge as well as the judge.
Culture and community sets the standards.A persons beliefs and standards are not held universally, and as such just because you believe you've acted with justification doesn't make it so.
Exactly why rules are defined as a society; laying out what is acceptable and what isn't. Any deviation has consequences regardless of your core beliefs.
Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
This is something I’ve always wondered about in regards to using a firearm for that mercy killing. If one were within city limits it would be illegal to use a firearm, even though no wildlife laws are intended to prohibit mercy killings.ORS 498.016
Taking crippled or helpless wildlife
Nothing in the wildlife laws is intended to prohibit any person from killing any crippled or helpless wildlife when the killing is done for a humane purpose. Any person so killing any wildlife shall immediately report such killing to a person authorized to enforce the wildlife laws, and shall dispose of the wildlife in such manner as the State Fish and Wildlife Commission directs.
Just clarifying-- zealots around the world think their morals are above reproach. (not that I'm implying you're a zealot just that morals are individual beliefs)Culture and community sets the standards.
Hasn't it been implied if not stated outright that we are dealing with a "mercy kill" , meaning the standard has already been determined . I may have missed one but I think everyone here agrees to that standard: A situation has occurred where an animal needs killing, legal or not . Justification has been determined.
Mobs, Kings, Ayatollahs, Bureaucrats make rules. Yes, deviation from those rules may have consequences. It doesn't change what the moral thing to do is.
That brings up an interesting point.
Are you implying one should be content to be prosecuted (nay, persecuted) for doing the right and moral thing ?
Should any moral-minded person be accepting of a system that rewards immoral behavior?
I take issue with that. I would take issue with that in front of the Government Enforcer who would insist (with force if necessary) I go before a judge as well as the judge.
Combine "arrogance of man" with a subset of the hunting population that possess strong narcissistic traits and you get a window in the mindset of some folks on this site.Just clarifying-- zealots around the world think their morals are above reproach. (not that I'm implying you're a zealot just that morals are individual beliefs)
I don't think mercy killing has been standardized in this thread, actually the opposite has happened: YOU can very easily believe an animal will not survive yet it does. If an animal will live yet you determine death is ultimately better than life with physical impairments is that true mercy?
Interesting to ponder for sure.