Tuesday, August 30, 2011

The Persecution of Jeremy Hill (Updated, 9/8)



Jeremy Hill of Bonners Ferry, Idaho, shot and killed a grizzly bear that threatened his children. The federal government is seeking to imprison him for violating the Endangered Species Act. Idaho Governor Butch Otter wrote a nauseatingly sycophantic letter to someone he insisted on addressing as “The Honorable” Ken Salazar, the federal Secretary of Interior, pleading that the Regime be measured and magnanimous in carrying out its persecution of that innocent man.

“I recognize the federal jurisdiction under the Endangered Species Act, but I strongly support the right of individuals to defend themselves and others in such situations,” sniveled Otter. “One of the flaws of the ESA is the premium it places on protecting species at the expense of everything else. Although an individual can protect human safety under the law – as Jeremy felt he was doing – it’s a shame that the Endangered Species Act still does not enable citizens to protect their private property and pets in the same manner.”

That aspect of the ESA is not a “shame,” but rather the predictable and intended result of the measure, which codifies a worldview called “biocentrism” in which human beings are simply one species among many, and individual property rights do not exist. What is shameful, however, is Otter’s continued insistence on posturing as a representative of the people of Idaho, rather than a kennel-fed lapdog who knows the exact length of the leash connecting him to his masters in Washington. Were the Governor a worthier canine specimen, he would recognize this as a time to bare his teeth.

After killing the bear that had invaded his property and endangered his family, Hill contacted the local office of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Two officers were dispatched to examine the bear’s remains, and they certified what should be obvious to people whose minds aren’t cankered with eco-collectivist cant: Hill’s actions were entirely justified and more than a little courageous.


Jack Douglas, the Boundary County Prosecutor, conducted his own inquiry into the shooting and concluded that Hill was “forced to take lethal action” in order to protect his wife and four of the couple’s six children. Only one of the bears was killed, Douglas noted, and Hill “didn’t fire at the retreating bears because they no longer posed a threat.” 

This ends the matter. If Butch Otter, who loves to swan around in cowboy attire, had sufficient sand to fill an hourglass, he would inform Salazar that no federal official in the State of Idaho will be permitted to have any contact with Jeremy Hill or any member of his family. He would also inform Commissar Salazar that any federal official who molests or harasses them in any way will be taken into custody and evicted from the state. Otter would then issue instructions to that effect to the Idaho State Police and, if necessary, the Idaho National Guard. 

 After all, isn’t Otter the same intrepid, independent-minded badass who loves to speak about “nullification” and “interposition” – the same bare-knuckled slab of Rocky Mountain individualism who proudly “nullified” the Obamacare monstrosity in the Gem State? 

Well, no – not exactly. 

This is the same Village People-grade ersatz buckaroo whose attorney general collaborated with the Obama regime to punish a group of orthopedic surgeons who organized to protest federally imposed price controls on medical treatment.  He’s the same Janus-faced specimen who postures as the indomitable foe of federal meddling in health care – and then proudly announces that he has secured millions of pilfered dollars and is willing to permit Obamacare to operate within Idaho on a “case-by-case basis.” 

Given that substantive record, it’s not surprising that Otter, in dealing with the Jeremy Hill case, reacted by tugging on his forelock, rather than thrusting out his chin.

“I would sincerely appreciate your looking into this case and assisting any way you can,” Otter simpered in his letter to Salazar. With the unfailing instinct of a natural collaborator, Otter pointed out that Federal prestige might suffer if the persecution of the Hill family continues. The Feds need “to consider the impacts to grizzly recovery efforts because of Jeremy’s case,” Otter wrote. “There is great public outcry about this issue, and prosecution may further damage community support for recovery efforts.” 

Here Otter sought refuge in a familiar collectivist dialectic, treating Hill’s legitimate rights and the illegitimate demands of the federal eco-bureaucracy as if they have comparable moral weight – and implicitly seeking a “compromise” that will minimize the damage done to the victim while protecting the usurped power of the aggressor.  This is unsatisfactory: Any attempt to punish Hill – even to the extent of stealing the time necessary for a preliminary hearing – would be a crime. 

If Jeremy Hill had been wearing a government-issued costume, and his “victim” had been an unarmed human being, rather than a federally protected grizzly bear, he would be enjoying a paid vacation rather than facingfinancial ruin and the prospect of a year in prison. The talismanic phrase “officer safety” would be ritually invoked, officials would perform the appropriate roles in a pantomime of an inquiry, and the entirely predictable ruling of “justified” would be delivered. 

In the event that the details of this episode were too well-documented to deny, and sufficiently outrageous to shock the public conscience, a settlement would be paid with money extracted from tax victims, and the offender would be discharged without criminal charges or personal civil liability. That’s how this matter would play out, once again, if Jeremy Hill had been a law enforcement officer who committed an act of criminal homicide, rather than a father who killed a wild predator that threatened his children.



Boundary County, some will recall, is where a wolfpack of hired killers called the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team laid siege to the home of political non-conformist Randy Weaver, murdering Weaver’s teenage son Samuel and his wife, Vicky.  Lon Horiuchi, the FBI sniper who admitted to the killing of Vicky Weaver, was spared federal prosecution under an exotic doctrine described by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as “Supremacy Clause Immunity” – which in practice operates exactly like the discredited “Nuremberg Defense.” 

Under this doctrine, according to the Court, the only significant questions were these: Was Horiuchi acting under orders from his superiors, and was the kill-shot justified by "his subjective belief that his actions were necessary and proper"? Once those questions were answered in the affirmative, Horiuchi was immunized from either civil or criminal prosecution. 

A few months after handing down that ruling – which devised what dissenting Judge Alex Kozinski memorably denounced as a “007 Standard” for lethal force by federal agents -- the Ninth Court partially reversed that decision by acknowledging that the State of Idaho could prosecute Horiuchi for criminal homicide under state laws. Denise Woodbury, an assistant prosecutor from Boundary County, was prepared to prosecute the FBI sniper, but then- incoming county attorney Brett Benson – reacting to pressure from the state government – demurred. 

There is no doubt that Jeremy Hill acted in a “necessary and proper fashion.” No human being was harmed as a result of his actions. Yet Lon Horiuchi remains at large, and no doubt collects a federal pension – and Hill may well lose his home and his freedom (whatever that word means for a subject of the detestable Regime that presumes to rule us).

The persecution of Jeremy Hill offers that rarest of things – an opportunity for a government to act in defense of an individual’s rights by interposing itself between the victim and the assailant. 

Jeremy Hill is not going to prison. If Otter and the silly little government he heads aren’t willing to interpose on that man’s behalf, there are plenty of us living in Idaho who will. 


UPDATE: The Feds get their (half-)pound of flesh 


The headline announces: "Feds drop charge against Idaho grizzly shooter." Three paragraphs into the story we learn that this wasn't a recognition of Jeremy Hill's innocence, or an act of supposed clemency, but rather a successful act of extortion: "As part of a deal, Hill agreed his actions violated a regulation of the Endangered Species Act against removing nuisance bears and paid a $1,000 fine."

This is exactly the kind of resolution Butch Otter had sought: The issue is disposed of in a way that will abate the growing public outrage, while preserving the Federal Government's supposed authority to enforce the totalitarian Endangered Species Act. 

 

 Your donations are vital to help keep Pro Libertate on-line. Thanks so much, and God bless!






Dum spiro, pugno!

38 comments:

Kam Kam Fam said...

Mr. Grigg, I am riveted.

You are a national treasure. I can think of none equal to your ability in presenting issues so eloquently and thoughtfully. Thank you for the effort you put out into the world. I have been an avid follower for a time now and am better off for the healthy mental excercise that your thought provoking pieces force one to take part in.

Again, thank you.

Kam Kam Fam said...

Mr. Grigg, I am riveted.

You are a national treasure. I can think of none equal to your ability in presenting issues so eloquently and thoughtfully. Thank you for the effort you put out into the world. I have been an avid follower for a time now and am better off for the healthy mental excercise that your thought provoking pieces force one to take part in.

Again, thank you.

liberranter said...

After killing the bear that had invaded his property and endangered his family, Hill contacted the local office of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

BIG mistake. Jeremy Hill is certainly innocent of any crime, but if the above quotation is accurate, it clearly shows that he's not very bright.

idahobob said...

Sigh......

First rule is that you tell NO one!

The three s's.....shoot, shovel, shut up.

No matter what, whatever the circumstance.

Bob
III

liberranter said...

The three s's.....shoot, shovel, shut up.

Exactly. If the majority hasn't learned that by now, I'm not sure there's a lotta hope for the future.

Anonymous said...

Ditto on the National Treasure comment.

Charlie
III

shootist66 said...

Well, idahobob and liberranter stole my thunder, but I'll say it one more time, anyway...so it'll sink into the slower among us...shoot, shovel, and shut up! And that goes for all aggressors. Words to remain free by.

Matt said...

Grizzly bears don't have to be endangered.

There'd be more grizzly bears left if more people wanted one for breakfast:
http://tinyurl.com/3cws242

The point is: everyone should be free to own and raise any creature they wish, whether for food, entertainment, or preservation of species or breed.

Anonymous said...

Horiuchi may have escaped prosecution for his crimes. However, I can't keep track of the number of people I have heard proclaim that if they ever lay eyes on Horiuchi in Idaho again, he won't leave alive.

jk

Anonymous said...

I am very impressed at how well this is written. And I agree with it 100%.

Thank you for being brave in making this story public. I hope Mr. Hill doesn't lose his home or his livlihood. Please keep us updated on what happens and what we can do to help.

Anonymous said...

If you believe in what you do is lawful in defending your family and property, then digging a hole to cover it up is a cowardly act. Fear God, but fear no stinkin' government lawyer.
To uncover tyranny that has been around these parts for a long time, you have to face it and confront it. What the man was doing was lawful and correct. He killed a Grizz in self-defense. He reported the incident to people paid to keep track of the health of these critters.
The enemy to freedom and liberty is a 2-legged shyster, lawyer, pettifogger and American Bar Association member.
Why is it that the people of Idaho have so many lawyers who are anti-Idahoan in nature? Methinks that God intended to inflict lawyers on America for our national collective rejection of God's right order.

Shaddox said...

For once I don't agree with you. People like mr. Hill are hundreds of millions across America. Bears are only a few thousands. You can avoid confrontation with a bear because they're not aggresive creatures by nature. You can't judge an animal by human standards and I don't understand why people do this.

Jim Kress said...

He was protecting his kids from the bear. Provisions of this law are that no penalty may be imposed if, by a preponderance of the evidence that the act was in self defense.

US Code Title 16, Chapter 35,Section 1540 (a) (3) specifically states:

(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, no civil penalty shall be imposed if it can be shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed an act based on a good faith belief that he was acting to protect himself or herself, a member of his or her family, or any other individual from bodily harm, from any endangered or threatened species.

and (b)(3):

(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, it shall be a defense to prosecution under this subsection if the defendant committed the offense based on a good faith belief that he was acting to protect himself or herself, a member of his or her family, or any other individual, from bodily harm from any endangered or threatened species.

The idiot Federal prosecutor should drop the case or he will be humiliated in court.

Anonymous said...

Some enterprising Westerner should trap a few of these bears and release them in Rock Creek Park, Central Park, or Cape Cod. Let's see how much the East Coast tree huggers appreciate bears up close and personal.

Linda June said...

". . .release them in Rock Creek Park, Central Park, or Cape Cod."

Ha, ha! I love it! Or you could just release a few in downtown Boise with signs on them that say "Coutesy of Mr. Hill's Friends".

USSA said...

Comrade Hill should have let the bear eat him and his family to protect the collective. Now eat your peas and sprouts.

liberranter said...

Some enterprising Westerner should trap a few of these bears and release them in Rock Creek Park, Central Park, or Cape Cod.

Inflicting the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic on innocent bears? Now THAT'S animal abuse.

Anonymous said...

Shaddox said...Bears are only a few thousands. You can avoid confrontation with a bear because they're not aggresive creatures by nature.

For the love of god, man! You have split seconds to make a decision of life or death. There is no time to philosophize about the man/grizzly
dialectic.

idahobob said...

To Anon 4:57,

To dig a hole a cover it up is NOT a cowardly act, you fool!

It is being prudent.

If you want to deal with the rigged court (especially federal) system, you go right ahead. They will take your property, firearms, treasure, and attempt to split your family up. You will not win, you will only lose.

If you want to deal with that, sport, go for it.

Or are you what I think you are, another keyboard commando trying to stir things up. Otherwise known as a TROLL!!

Bob
III

liberranter said...

Well said, idahobob. Amerika's prisons are full of rubes like Jeremy Hill (and Anon 4:57) who "worked within the system," sure that "justice would ultimately prevail."

BTW, I have no doubt that Anon 4:57 is one of those hypocrites who would urge EVERYONE ELSE to "work within the system," but if faced with Jeremy Hill's choice under the same circumstances, would do exactly as Hill did - and then scream foul when the weight of the Regime came crashing down upon him in the aftermath. That, after all, is the New Amoricon/Amerikan Way: Do as I SAY, not as I DO.

Jerri Lynn Ward said...

Everyone criticizes Muslims for that section in the Koran (or a commentary, I can't exactly remember) which supports lying to their enemies. Where do people think that comes from? It comes from the Old Testament and the story of Rahab (among others). You have NO moral obligation to tell the truth to someone who seeks to commit evil against you.

People in that part of the country need to start thinking of themselves in the same way as did the European Christians who hid Jews and lied about it. There is no valor in ruining your life or the lives of others by falling into the hands of a repugnant, tax-fed bureaucrat because you decided to tell him the truth.

Those feds are every bit as much your enemy as the Nazis were to the Dutch. Treat them according, zip your lips and protect your neighbors.

Anonymous said...

To the "shoot, shovel, and shutup" folks. I guess you wouldn't mind if the cops did that too, huh?

There's a word that is used when people apply different standards to different people. Starts with an "H".

And the private property thing is BS. Bears don't know what private property is and the Law doesn't stop where someone's property line begins.

If the guy was really just defending himself, then he needed to be in danger. The article doesn't describe him as being in danger. As for his pet? Was it tied up? He couldn't jut call the dog into the house?

Did he try firing a warning shot to make some noise? Did he do anything but shoot first and think later? That's what I'd like to know, 'cause if he didn't, then I don't feel too sorry for him. And if he did, why not say so and thereby help us all to better understand the situation?

Bottom line, if you're going to live in "bear country", especially with ones that are considered endangered, then one should take responsibility for that and learn how to live with them as peacefully as one can, or get the F out. My 2 cents.

William N. Grigg said...

the private property thing is BS. Bears don't know what private property is and the Law doesn't stop where someone's property line begins.Bottom line, if you're going to live in "bear country", especially with ones that are considered endangered, then one should take responsibility for that and learn how to live with them as peacefully as one can, or get the F out.

The purpose of law is to protect private property, a concept that applies exclusively to human beings. As you correctly point out, bears have no understanding of the fundamental concept of private property, a disability you apparently share.

Anonymous said...

Good come back Mr. Grigg. However, the private property argument simply doesn't apply in this situation.

I very much understand private property and I very much know that it is not an absolute.

Can you murder somebody on your private property? Beat a child? Rape a woman? No? Well why the heck not?

Answer that question, or think about it at least, and you will then be able to join the rest of the rational thinking world.

I don't know if this guy was actually in danger or not. It didn't appear that he was from what I read. But if he was, then he certainly has a right to protect himself. But I try to not taking sides until I know that whole story, unlike some people it seems.

William N. Grigg said...

the private property argument simply doesn't apply in this situation.

All rights are property rights, and that concept applies in every situation.

I very much understand private property and I very much know that it is not an absolute.

If you actually understood the concept, you would likewise understand that property rights, properly understood, are absolute -- as your question below illustrates.

Can you murder somebody on your private property? Beat a child? Rape a woman? No? Well why the heck not?

Each of those crimes is an act of violent aggression that violates property rights at the most elemental level. One's property rights begin with protection against violations of bodily integrity.

Animals do not have property rights. They can't understand the concept or articulate it. As Aristotle observed thousands of years ago, rights inhere in man as a separate order of nature -- a being capable of abstract thought and the use of language to express and act on those concepts.

On that happy day when our ursine neighbors exhibit similar abilities, I will happily re-examine that proposition.

There is no ambiguity here regarding the defensive nature of Mr. Hill's actions; local wildlife officials and the county prosecutor have validated his claim to self-defense. His behavior was that of someone who acted with a clear conscience and had nothing to hide. The "whole story" has been told, and it is the Feds who are perversely determined to act as if it hasn't.

Anonymous said...

to anon @ 1822,

question...

would you shoot your son to save a bear?

also, it would be nice if you were to reveal who you are. i'm not trying to point you out...i just want to warn hunters never to go hunting with you. God only knows if they get attacked how you would react.

rick

NTS said...

Just curious: Who is the DA in Boundary County now? Can the DA file charges against herr Horiuchi? Could a fund be set up to assist Boundary County is this endeavor?

idahobob said...

I always find it amusing that when there is an article about the killing of Wolves, Grizzly Bears, etc, the Anon (troll) commenter's, that obviously do not live in the Rocky Mountain Region, seem to come out from under their rocks and start postulating about the evils of defending oneself and family from said predators. Humans do not equate to animals. God made man in his image, and He gave man dominion over the animals

I would actually challenge these nefarious morons, to come out here and see what it is like living under the tyranny of the Forest Circus, Fish and Wildlife Service, the Federal court System, and the other bottom feeders, such as Friends of Wildlife and other morons that support the UN's Re-Wilding project and Agenda 21.

We live here, you do not. Just because that most of you live in planned communities that have little of no wildlife within a days drive (in your Prius or other eco-friendly vehicle), you have no idea what the real world is all about.

So do us all a favor, stay where you are, and let those of us out here manage our own affairs. We do not need you to tell us how to manage our own lives and resources.

We have had enough of your pompous postulating.

Bob
III

liberranter said...

To the "shoot, shovel, and shutup" folks. I guess you wouldn't mind if the cops did that too, huh?

You obviously don't read the news and obviously haven't read anything else Will has posted here over the past several years. Had you done either, you'd know that cops do some varient of "shoot, shovel, and shut up" all the time, as a matter of routine.

aferrismoon said...

I guess the main thrust of this article, looking back at other posts, is the complete impunity 'officer-humans' dispatch 'thereatening bear-humans'.

The badgeless human protects his property and reports acc. to the law - the badged humans blast whomever they deem to be of 'mundane' enough status.

I believe the crux of this case lies in the fact that the image of a gizzly bearing down on ones family and home resembles too much a SWAT-team applying the law and as such officials wished to nip this visual anomaly in the bud, and jolly far-sighted of them it proves.

We'll soon see if the heartless Hill has a contract with a Chinese Medicine outlet .

cheers

Anonymous said...

As a native Idahoan, I can sympathize with the S^3 crowd (shoot, shovel and shut up). But, as an avid bowhunter I will say that for the most part Idaho Fish and Game assessed this situation correctly - and were willing to dismiss it as an appropriate response. Unfortunately, it climbed the bureau-rat ladder to the fed level to folks who have never experienced wolves howling in the night or a bear walking into camp. Just a couple years ago a wolf was hit on hwy 95 just a few miles north of where Will is at and I'm sure they are closer than most people who live here realize (esp North Ender's). It changes your perspectives a bit IMNSHO.

So, in a way, Mr. Hill actually did us a favor by reporting a human/griz confrontation. Without documented evidence of such encounters, the ruling elite would never have the 'statistics' they seem to want to rule the world by. He made the choice I would have in his situation though.

As for Butch ("really it's just Jack in my cope ossifer') Otter, the dude is a fed teat sucking pig. If he hadn't been married to Jack's daughter at the time he wouldn't have gotten a slap on the wrist for his DUI.

Just my $0.02

In Male Fide
Sic Semper Tyranis

Todd said...

If the totality of the evidence really is what has been publically presented, I can't imagine what is going through the mind of the prosecutor in this case. It is not only a loser, it is an infamous type of loser case and will be a black mark on his record in his senate run (and believe me, all prosecutors, whether they admit it or not think of themselves as will-be- senators/govenors/presidents etc. LMAO).

SSS is really the only practical option if an average guy acting honorably will almost certainly be bankrupted by the government trying to prove himself innocent.

Justice this is not.

zach said...

You say he won't be going to prison, but they'll have a jury who would gladly send a puppy to the gas chamber. Of course, if it were me or my family in this situation, I think violence would very much be called for, if the feds pushed the issue.

William N. Grigg said...

zach, you're right: If a federal prosecutor gets this case before a jury, Hill's chances will be plotted somewhere between the coordinates "slim" and "none."

You're also right that if the Feds continue their aggression against Hill, lawful defensive violence is likely to result.

A Critic said...

I don't agree with the Shoot, Shovel, Shut Up.

Why waste the pelt and all that meat? Might as well get a rug and feed the hungry.

liberranter said...

Will:

Concerning your expanded 9/8 update posted on the LRC Blog, the posturing of Butch Otter (a pathetic "tough guy" name for such an obvious castrato) is the default among "Conservative Republican" governors and is all that is ever required of any of them. There is a rather obvious reason for this.

"Conservative Republican" votards mirror the "leadership" of the Amerikan Hezballah ("Party of God") in that none of them actually value, all posturing aside, the ideas to which they pay constant lip service. To do so, putting their money where their mouths are, would require accepting responsibility for their own lives and destinies, respecting the property and lives of others, and having to actually earn their living in a free and competitive marketplace free of handouts from the State. The very thought of ANY of those things coming to pass turns the stomachs of right-wing fascists every bit as much it does those of left-wing Marxists, whether they are holders of power and privilege or mere serfs. But in order to keep up the fog of self-delusion, the pseudo-libertarian rhetoric must be kept flowing, even with the gulf between words and deeds is too obvious for even the densest among us to miss. Given this, Otter is just doing his job. Were he to have matched Tea Party election rhetoric with actual deeds, the disruption of the status quo would have been immediately felt and would have caused horrendous pain, leading to calls for Otter's political lynching from the very throngs of marching morons who voted him into office.

The sad fact is that the majority of Idahoans (those who are regular contributors to this blog notwithstanding) are just like the sheeple majority everywhere else in the Empire: when push comes to shove, they want security over liberty, never mind the costs in money and freedom.

Anonymous said...

And..... they got their money.

Anonymous said...

to liberanter,

i think the cops' version of shoot, shovel, and shut up is "shoot, lie, and cover up."

rick