It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kill Bigfoot, face a murder charge maybe?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:
CX

posted on May, 3 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Tonight i watched a documentary on the Bigfoot mystery, same old footage and info, but one comment had me wondering what others here would do.

One guy on the documentary, some kind of medical professional (pathologist i think), put the question out that "if" a Bigfoot was found, would you kill it to prove it's existance? A common question that has been discussed here many a time. From what i have read, people are divided on this one, some feel a dead Bigfoot is the only way of proving the exist, whereas others don't feel the need to kill such a creature. However, this guy also asked the question, "If after a post mortem of the Bigfoot, during lab investigations it was found to have the Homo genus, would the person who shot it be then tried for homicide?"

I was'nt too clued up on the whole genus thing so for anyone else who is'nt, i found this in Wikipedia....


"Homo is the genus that includes modern humans and their close relatives. The genus is estimated to be between 1.5 and 2.5 million years old. All species except Homo sapiens (modern humans) are extinct. Homo neanderthalensis, traditionally considered the last surviving relative, died out 30,000 years ago while recent evidence suggests that Homo floresiensis lived as recently as 12,000 years ago."

So as i see it, and please correct me if i'm understanding this wrong, it seems that any possible relative to us disapeared thousands of years ago. Then again, as it says, "recent evidence" sugests this, so that means it's the latest findings, not the final and definate findings. We are learning things every day about our world and the creatures that inhabit it. None of us can say for sure that if there is a Bigfoot roaming around out there, it has'nt got similar genetic makeup as us, in fact looking at the thing i'd say it's pretty certain that it may do.

You would'nt kill another human being just because they wandered past would you? No, because you know the consequences. So going by this, if you were observing a Bigfoot walking away from you , not threatening you, walking away or minding it's own business, would you still shoot it?

CX.




posted on May, 3 2006 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Tranq it instead.

You Americans and your "blowing things up" mentatilty......
j/k

Don't see why it has to be killed though. If you see one, catch it, don't kill it. If it makes you happier, know you could make more moeny off it alive than dead



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   
I wouldn't kill it, I'd put my gun on the ground and slowly walk up to it and try to communicate.
Killing Bigfoot would be just wrong!
Shoot him with a camera, but not a gun.



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 09:01 PM
link   
I doubt you would be charged with murder, simply because it's not technically the same species. Besides that, there is a possibility that a bigfoot would fit more into the genus Gorilla than Homo-- there is more to the genus Homo than just bipedalism. You might get stuck with an animal cruelty charge-- I'm not saying that's correct or ethical, but it's possible.

Personally, I think it would be awesome if Bigfoot were something along the lines of Paranthropus boisei just because that would be an awesome anthropological find. It's next to impossible, but hey, we can all have dreams.


But no, I wouldn't shoot it. I don't see the logic in killing something that would be one of the major scientific finds of the decade, if not the century.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 04:06 AM
link   
In short murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. The legal definition used to describe the act of murder is violence 'with malice aforethought'.

To be a bit more technical:

murder n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way), and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first-degree murder. By statute many states make killings in which there is torture, movement of the person (kidnapping) before the killing, as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), and the death of a police officer or prison guard all first degree murders with or without premeditation, and with malice presumed. Second-degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life others (such as firing a gun into a crowd, or bashing someone with any deadly weapon). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. (Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. To be murder the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice, and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. (Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus). Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought.


So, looking at it from a legal point, you cannot be charged with murder seeing that it's not a "human being" - i.e. homo sapien. If by some clever means somebody convinces the court that Bigfoot actually classifies as a human being, you can always get off by means of "legal excuse". 1. You did not know that it was human. 2. You can plead self-defence.

You can bet your mother that you will be dragged to court by some animal-rights group for killing an endangered species, animal cruelty, or something clever. I cannot speak for any judge or jury, but I doubt if you will be found guilty of anything.

History taught us that no picture or video image will ever be good enough to act as "proof, thus we'll have to have something tangible to show. A live Bigfoot would be ideal.

@mj13
It would be amazing if Bigfoot were to be Paranthropus boisei. It will most definitely shake the scientific community and open so many doors.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 05:11 AM
link   
More Than Skin-Deep

I think the answer to this question depends on the particular variety of Bigfoot involved.

If it's the kind that has a zipper, then yeah, you might be in for some legal trouble.


Then again, maybe not, if you get a sympathetic DA.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Leave it up to the violent nature of human beings to even have to consider the situation. If Bigfoot is real it has been purported to live in family groups and is very nurturing. By killing one, you may be causing the death of many in the form of offspring that still depend on mom or dad or both.

It may not be murder but; a terrible proposition none the less.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beer_Guy
I wouldn't kill it, I'd put my gun on the ground and slowly walk up to it and try to communicate.
Killing Bigfoot would be just wrong!
Shoot him with a camera, but not a gun.



yea i seen a show on bigfoot texas big foot it was, and these 2 numb nuts armed themselves up , wandering the woods 24/7 chewing tobacco spitting on ground,

saying hell ya me and tex are gonna bag ourselfs a bigfoot....



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Not homicide.

It would be a Game violation -- shooting a non-game species.

Under a strict interpretation of many state game laws stalking one with a camera could be construed as harassment of a non-game species. A citable offense. That would interesting to watch on 'Court TV'.


[edit on 7-5-2006 by dave_54]



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Well first of all if i was armed i would gain it's attention, then see what it does if it came towards me in a threatening way or quickly then he's going down.
But if he walks away i'll try to get a photo and if he stands his ground same thing.



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beer_Guy
I wouldn't kill it, I'd put my gun on the ground and slowly walk up to it and try to communicate.
Killing Bigfoot would be just wrong!
Shoot him with a camera, but not a gun.


yes thats what people need to do! if your going hunting for big foot bring a camera not a gun please.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   
I wouldn't shoot at anything in the woods that I was not sure of. Anyone who posesses a firearm and would do such a thing deserves to be smacked.

But, if I had bigfoot in-my-face and was 100% absolutely sure it was 'him', then i'm shooting.

Why?

Simply because of arrogance, to be the person to end the mystery. That, and, i'd wonder what it tastes like barbecued.



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   
if it was a guy in a suit, pointing a gun at it and yelling would provoke a different response than if it was an actual bigfoot. aim, yell something like 'stop or i WILL shoot' then do so. personally i would risk the charges for the zoological discovery of the century



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkDude
if it was a guy in a suit, pointing a gun at it and yelling would provoke a different response than if it was an actual bigfoot. aim, yell something like 'stop or i WILL shoot' then do so. personally i would risk the charges for the zoological discovery of the century


Yeah, back to that gun safety thing... I NEVER point at something unless I intend to shoot and NEVER put my finger on the trigger until i'm ready to pull it. I'd recommend the same for anyone else.

Maybe throw a rock at the thing?



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Well the Loch Ness Monster is covered by the Endangered Species Act here in the UK, and a similar arrangement is in Sweden with their sea monster.
news.scotsman.com...

Is there an American version of the Endangered Species Act? Beacuse then it would be covered with no additional law.

[edit on 13-5-2006 by Periphery]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join