TexasCHLforum.com

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.

EEllis wrote:

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?

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

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.

puma guy wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:

puma guy wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:Come on people. It was on a highway, it was charging first responders “as they worked to get the driver and passenger out of the car”.

The deputies get a little paid vacation then back to work and the owner of the bull got what he deserved.

Just got back to reading this thread. Regardless of the outcome of the investigation in the death of the rancher, I believe that's the most callous, cruel and disrespectful statement I've ever read on this forum. I can only imagine your were being sarcastic.

If the road is open range, the deputies might be in trouble.

Idaho does have "herd" districts where animals are required to be fenced. However, I find no herd districts within Adams county where this incident took place. If so the bull had the right to be on the road way and the rancher had the right to protect his property. The car owner would have been liable for any damage to the bull or his or her vehicle.
If this is true and the deputies are ignorant of the law, they should be charged with second degree murder.

If the accident was in an open range county (not all are, some are "herd districts") and not on a federal highway, then the driver of the car involved will likely be liable for hitting the bull, and the rancher (or his estate) not liable for the accident. I just don't see any implementation of an open range law that will put the deputies in legal jeopardy if they deemed the first responders were in physical jeopardy from the bull and they shot it. The most that would have happened is the county paying a civil payment. As to what happened between the rancher and the deputies, whoever can be shown to have used or threatened to use unlawful deadly force against the other will be the ones having a problem. Should wait for more details, but my money is not on the deputies having a problem with this either.

If this proves to be open range then the public is responsible for avoiding the bull not killing it. Where are the ranchers property rights. Don't like the law? Move or change it.

If that’s “the most callous, cruel and disrespectful statement you’ve ever read on this forum then you didn’t read the statements I emphasized above.

At the time of my comment there was discussion under the headline "Rancher defending his bull, dies in deputy shootout". Comments were being made that sounded like the injured people in the car were being blamed and should be punished, and the rancher was in the right defending his bull with deadly force.

My comment was to remind folks that two or maybe four human lives are worth more than any bull, the deputies will not be punished, and if the rancher threatened the deputies with a gun then he got what he deserved.

In my book comparing your comments to others arguing legal theory doesn't compare to stating with virtually no factual information that a man deserved to die at the hands of two, I assume good men who will merely take a little paid time off and then go about business as usual. I stand by my comments and I believe if you stood in front of the officers and the family of the deceased rancher and made those same comments their reaction would be the same. Maybe it's just me. You made your argument and I made mine so I'll leave it at that.

puma guy wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:Come on people. It was on a highway, it was charging first responders “as they worked to get the driver and passenger out of the car”.

The deputies get a little paid vacation then back to work and the owner of the bull got what he deserved.

Just got back to reading this thread. Regardless of the outcome of the investigation in the death of the rancher, I believe that's the most callous, cruel and disrespectful statement I've ever read on this forum. I can only imagine your were being sarcastic.

If the road is open range, the deputies might be in trouble.

Idaho does have "herd" districts where animals are required to be fenced. However, I find no herd districts within Adams county where this incident took place. If so the bull had the right to be on the road way and the rancher had the right to protect his property. The car owner would have been liable for any damage to the bull or his or her vehicle.
If this is true and the deputies are ignorant of the law, they should be charged with second degree murder.

If the accident was in an open range county (not all are, some are "herd districts") and not on a federal highway, then the driver of the car involved will likely be liable for hitting the bull, and the rancher (or his estate) not liable for the accident. I just don't see any implementation of an open range law that will put the deputies in legal jeopardy if they deemed the first responders were in physical jeopardy from the bull and they shot it. The most that would have happened is the county paying a civil payment. As to what happened between the rancher and the deputies, whoever can be shown to have used or threatened to use unlawful deadly force against the other will be the ones having a problem. Should wait for more details, but my money is not on the deputies having a problem with this either.

If this proves to be open range then the public is responsible for avoiding the bull not killing it. Where are the ranchers property rights. Don't like the law? Move or change it.