TexasCHLforum.com

casp625 wrote: Wasn't t there an article posted saying the rancher brought his weapon out to put down the bull when a deputy spun the rancher around?

That was a claim but that same report said they didn't hear the rancher fire. Right now the reports seem to conflict and the whole thing is far from clear.

Something else I just read was that both cops and the rancher reportedly fired their weapons and one cop had an injury related to a shot fired at him. Since this is the only time I have heard this I'm taking it with a grain of salt but it would change the scenario if true.

MONGOOSE wrote:http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat ... 5-2118.htm

That's the law.....seems like the rancher had taken control quite well and the Deputies did not approve.

Why post something that absolutly doesn't say what you claim? That links to a law that say a rancher doesn't have a duty to keep animals off a roadway and no liability for any damages that occur from an accident with an animal in the road. It doesn't say that a driver is automatically and fully liable for an injured animal or that the rancher is allowed to use lethal force to "Defend" an animal.

Dave2 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I think a video from either a body or dash camera would be very helpful in determining what actually happened.

Maybe I need to re-read the articles but I just don't get the impression the rancher had the intent to use his gun to inflict harm on the cops or other people. It also appears some bad judgement was used by several people involved including the rancher.

I got the impression that the rancher was about to put down the bull himself when the deputy startled him, causing him to spin around and experience an AD/ND (depending on your POV), which the officers interpreted as an attack, which they (rightly or wrongly) used as justification to "return fire", which killed the rancher.

IIRC, all I've read is the stuff that's been posted here. Dunno, maybe I missed something.

Edit: Oh, I missed the "don't" in your post.

You know that may be the most likely explanation for what happened I've heard so far. All we really have is the basic info from the police, and they are unlikely to say more until a full investigation is done, and a highly emotional response from the family that is hard to believe true. I haven't believed we have enough info to really know what happened but your scenario would fit with the families statments pretty darn well and certainly seem more likely than that the cops killed the rancher just because.

MONGOOSE wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:

MONGOOSE wrote:The vehicle driver is liable for damages. It would be ashamed to have a Deputy like VOR who would enforce his own version of the law and not the actual law.

I was a deputy and human life is more valuable than any property or livestock. Period.

Your opinion. Period

No the law says that in that situation the humans life is most definitely more valuable. Why would anyone argue about that?