41 votes

OUTRAGE: 76yo Auburn, MA Grandpa Charged for Defending Himself vs a BEAR in His Own Backyard!

Auburn Man Facing Charges After Killing Bear In His Backyard

Ahlstrand is now charged with illegally killing a bear, illegally baiting a bear, illegal possession of a firearm and failing to secure a weapon.

April 7, 2013 11:59 PM

AUBURN (CBS) – A 76-year-old Auburn man is facing charges after killing a bear in his backyard.

Richard Ahlstrand told WBZ-TV he was stocking his bird feeder Friday night when a bear about seven feet tall and 300-to-400 pounds started chasing him.

That’s when he turned his shotgun on the bear.

Direct .mp4 Download Link: http://media.boston.cbslocal.com/CBSBOS_20130408070929780AA.mp4

=================================================================

This is what happens to a free human soul, when Eco-Nazi Statists attack in an Anti-Gun State.

Will the Doctrine of Competing Harms be used?

In New England states, it's long been an accepted legal practice to argue that if NOT violating certain 'laws'/Codes/Statutes would result in MORE harm, then it is justifiable defense to invoke the Doctrine of Competing Harms: saving one's life trumps violating 'animal rights' or 'gun possession.' Of course, ideally under Common Law, possession of anything should NEVER be illegal, under any circumstances, but we're talking USSA & Commiechusetts.

Stay tuned...

Hateful Anti-Natural Right of Self-Defense scumbag statist Eco-Nazi Animal-1sters! Arghghgh!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

somebody was feeding that bear

Black bears generally don't attack people and will run away unless habituated to people. In fact, suburbanites can sometimes go years without knowing that a bear was denning under their house.

Please note that I of course support the guy's right to defend himself against the bear. He should not be charged.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

Perhaps shoot the bear huggers that are feeding these animals

creating problems...

=======
RON PAUL 2012

I see a DHS safety video on the horizon...

...on protecting oneself from bear attacks with scissors.

No No

Defecate and urinate on yourself in the hopes that the Bear doesn't rape you.

I guess they would...

I guess they would have charged him with littering or unlicensed butchering in city limits if he had let the bear eat him. Idiots!

RickStone

Jury nullification?

Seems like a good solution for 'bout everything. :)

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- James Madison

Posted Below

Destroyer vs. Victor the Bear

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjnuVFmiDfM

donvino

this is insane..

The old man has probably had the shotgun for years. Who the f*** would really want to try this old man for any of this crap after he almost freaking died?? This old man is probably thinking what we are, "what the f happened to this country?!"

Did they just make shotguns illegal with the new legislation or have they been illegal?

Homeland security statement: patriotism is now considered terrorism.
I love www.isidewith.com shared it with everyone I know. If anything they realize its not just a red and blue idiot running for reelection.

A Bear

Can only be killed legally with bare hands imo. lol

donvino

LMAO!

LMAO!

Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.

ie The Destroyer vs. Victor the Bear

lol

'The bear is a natural wrestler' :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjnuVFmiDfM

donvino

Sometimes...


http://youtu.be/aPVLyB0Yc6I

"I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_enlistment

There is no duration defined in the Oath

I would be suing the

I would be suing the arresting police officer, the police department, and the city for misapplication of the law, false arrest, official oppression with trumped up charges and whatever else I could think of.

I'd try 42 U.S.C. § 1983

I'd try 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil action for deprivation of rights).

Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

It would be fun to try to get a federal prosecutor to go after them on Title 18, U.S.C., Sections 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law) and 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights). But fat chance for that under the current administration.

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.

Agreed

Except for the lawyer. Why should you ever need a lawyer to defend yourselves. If the government can agree you need a lawyer to defend yourselves because you cant possible know all the laws, then they have to agree the laws are to complicated and should be reduced.

He can win this on his own reasoning and making the judge use common senses at least for once.

But the problem is not if he will win it or not.
Its the fact that he is being charged in the first place. It waste tax payers money (the govt waste enough of that) as well as cost him a fortune in legal fees he may never see again and a lot of his time.

So now will other residents with birdfeeders

be charged with "illegally baiting a bear?" And what about the ringleaders of this nefarious practice? The Massachusetts Audubon Society! Those shameless bear-baiters actually promote the activity on their website! http://www.massaudubon.org/Nature_Connection/wildlife/index....

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

it wasn't a bear, it was a furloughed analyst

from the pentagon.

Apparently, once one starts feeding on taxpayers, it's hard to stop.

=======
RON PAUL 2012

By far and away...

...the greatest comment of the day! More over, move believable then the actual story.

░░░░░░███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ ☻/
Il███████████████████]. /▌
◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤.. / \

I do not know about USA law but you are allowed to defend

yourself in Canada.

If any animal attacked me I would use my shotgun, as others have done in the area where I live. We are given credit for having a grain of intelligence and common sense if we kill a bear or wolf. In fact we are told that if we choose to live in an isolated area it is our responsibility to protect ourselves. No one could get out here to help us in time if we relied on the provincial police.

The USA media and government seem determined to cause you folks as much trouble as possible about guns to justify disarming Americans. Even the media guys look a little shocked.

If he gets a half decent

If he gets a half decent lawyer, this will be an open and shut case. He should also counter by sueing the people who made a determination that it was wrong of him to save his life.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.