Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 12-23-2018, 12:40 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigene View Post
but still does not prove sentience. Or enough to convict of "homicide"
Chimpanzees are obviously sentient, so any species that diverged from humans much more recently would surely also be be sentient.

As for the homicide issue, you just seem to be assuming a conclusion without making any argument. I think the whole point of the OP is that we have no legal framework for this. At the moment, we draw a bright line between humans and our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. But what if another living hominid species were discovered that's much more closely related to humans. What rights would it have?
  #102  
Old 12-23-2018, 01:27 PM
Sigene is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by kk fusion View Post
A question related to this is circling the net, and I am interested in the American legal view on this.

Suppose a surviving individual of a hominid sideline, so far unknown to science, is found and deliberately killed by a licensed hunter. Could he be charged with homicide? In other words, how is a "human" legally defined in terms of being a murder victim?

Well I base my comments strictly on what the OP was asking, quoted above. I don't think the hunter could be charged with homicide even if the DNA shows a close phyologenetic relationship with humans. A hunter will not be charged with homicide even if he kills a chimpanzee running around the forest in Oregon....maybe charged with something else, but not homicide.

Even if the DNA shows such a close relationship, there is still no proof that the critter was sentient. It doesn't matter if a chimp is considered sentient. THere is no way to prove the dead organism is sentient, because it is dead. If there were a population of bigfoots that were known and studied and conferred with "humaness" then I think there is a case for homicide.

BUT, the OP doesn't ask that. He asks if shooting a surviving individual would be cause for homicide. THe answer really has to be no, simply because there is no proof that this individual organism represents a population we consider human. If the DNA does prove that this organism was human and not an unknown hominid than its clearly homicide.....but then that means its not a different organism.
  #103  
Old 12-23-2018, 02:08 PM
Sigene is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
......... But what if another living hominid species were discovered that's much more closely related to humans. What rights would it have?
This is a different question than what the OP was asking. If we found another living hominid species closely related to humans, I don't fathom a guess. And I will certainly not disagree.

But that is not the scenario the OP laid out. If there was ONE individual found and shot (as laid out by the OP), the hunter cannot be convicted of homicide if the DNA shows that it is not human. And you can't ask the dead individual if it had language, culture, complex thought, or other human characteristics. You might be able to assume it had something similar to chimpanzees, or assume it had something closer to humans in terms of culture and the like. But that is an assumption without proof. And to convict the hunter of homicide by any stretch of the imagination requires proof that the species was human. With only one (Dead) organism, I just don't see how you could prove it.
  #104  
Old 12-23-2018, 02:32 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,434
Laws against homocide aren't based on whether the victim was sentient (or sapient, which is probably what you meant to say). They're based on whether the victim was human. If the victim was close enough to us that it'd be put in genus Homo, I'd certainly argue for a homocide charge.
  #105  
Old 12-24-2018, 07:27 AM
Sigene is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,362
I can see your opinion that if they are of the genus homo then homicide charges would be filed. I respectfully disagree though and think being in the genus homo is not enough to charge the hunter with homocide.

I thought about your opinion, which led me to an interesting question. If the roles were reversed and the organism intentionally killed the person, do you think they should be arrested and charged with murder?

With my stance on the issue, I would say no.
  #106  
Old 12-25-2018, 05:07 PM
Urbanredneck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,542
On another board there was a man who claimed that back in the 70's, once while out hunting, he spied a large hairy creature that he said looked alot the legendary bigfoot and he had a rifle with scope where he knew he could shoot and kill it. However while covered with hair and not looking human he felt the creature looked just human enough he didnt feel it would be right to shoot it. Besides it was a female nursing a "child".

I really feel like the man was being credible. What did he see? I dont know. But picture a "person", covered head to toe in red hair, no clothing, with a face thats a mix of human and ape like.

So in conclusion I feel that killing one would be a type of crime.

Not to mention you could be shooting a prankster in a costume.
  #107  
Old 12-26-2018, 04:49 AM
Sangahyando is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 2,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
On another board there was a man who claimed that back in the 70's, once while out hunting, he spied a large hairy creature that he said looked alot the legendary bigfoot and he had a rifle with scope where he knew he could shoot and kill it. However while covered with hair and not looking human he felt the creature looked just human enough he didnt feel it would be right to shoot it. Besides it was a female nursing a "child".

I really feel like the man was being credible. What did he see? I dont know. But picture a "person", covered head to toe in red hair, no clothing, with a face thats a mix of human and ape like.

So in conclusion I feel that killing one would be a type of crime.

Not to mention you could be shooting a prankster in a costume.
Not meaning to "diss" you or your sentiments here; but in my experience, those who opine that Bigfoot exists in North America as a so far uncatalogued, purely flesh-and-blood species; relate quite numerous accounts from people who supposedly encountered a presumable Bigfoot,and were in a position to shoot it dead -- but could not bring themselves to do so, because they found its aspect too human. There are a fair number of people for whom such an encounter might go that way -- the more so, if the encountered creature were a female nursing a baby of the species -- but also IMO, many more-brutish types who would shoot to kill.

The frequency with which, according to Bigfoot "believers", humans equipped to deal death, encounter Bigfoots -- yet somehow, nobody ever kills one and thus solves the mystery; is one of various factors which have persuaded me over time, that Bigfoot's existence as a flesh-and-blood species pure and simple, is out of the question.
  #108  
Old 12-26-2018, 06:56 AM
Urbanredneck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sangahyando View Post
Not meaning to "diss" you or your sentiments here; but in my experience, those who opine that Bigfoot exists in North America as a so far uncatalogued, purely flesh-and-blood species; relate quite numerous accounts from people who supposedly encountered a presumable Bigfoot,and were in a position to shoot it dead -- but could not bring themselves to do so, because they found its aspect too human. There are a fair number of people for whom such an encounter might go that way -- the more so, if the encountered creature were a female nursing a baby of the species -- but also IMO, many more-brutish types who would shoot to kill.

The frequency with which, according to Bigfoot "believers", humans equipped to deal death, encounter Bigfoots -- yet somehow, nobody ever kills one and thus solves the mystery; is one of various factors which have persuaded me over time, that Bigfoot's existence as a flesh-and-blood species pure and simple, is out of the question.
Believe it or not, yes, I totally agree.

I dont know what "bigfoot" is. I agree I dont think it's an actual race of biped animal or north american ape or whatever species living out there but at the same time I feel like their is credible evidence that there is "something" there. I mean sightings and encounters go back to the days of the indians and many credible persons have written about them.

But your right, if it was "real" somebody would have shot or captured one by now. Also in basic terms of biology such an animal would need areas to feed, enough numbers to breed, and have a noticeable habitat. The man I mentioned earlier said the area he found the creature, unless it was a total herbivore, would not have had enough food to sustain them. He didnt know what to make of it.
  #109  
Old 12-26-2018, 07:44 AM
ohiomstr2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPRK View Post
I don't know about this (I would assume that mice, rats and bats are not protected wildlife?), but, in response to some of the comments above, surely it must be highly illegal to unload the old elephant gun on a target that you don't even know what it is-- Bigfoot, a guy in a fancy dress, whatever.

Now I am no professional zoologist, but according to Wikipedia there is a real-life example of identifying a species without bagging a zoological holotype, though according to the article it appears to be controversial. Either way, it would not be done by some random drunken idiot. ("Wabbit season! Duck season!")
Long ago I walked into my friends house, only to discover him prone on the kitchen floor, pointing a handgun under the sink.

He was hunting a mouse.
  #110  
Old 12-26-2018, 09:34 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,434
Be careful about the "accounts going back to the Indians", as a lot of those are the result of poor anthropological practices. A good anthropologist will go to the storyteller of a tribe and say "Tell me your stories", and then record all of the stories, whether they match what they expected or not. A poor anthropologist, however, will do things like asking a storyteller "Tell me your tribe's stories of Sasquatch", to which a storyteller will respond by telling a story of Sasquatch, even if he's never heard of him before and has no idea who or what Sasquatch is.

Also, of course, even if some of the "Indian stories" are authentic (authentic stories, that is, not non-fiction), they're not independent of the modern sightings. If someone goes out into the woods and sees a bear on its hind limbs, or another hunter in a ghillie suit, or just a trick of the shadows, they might not think anything of it... but if they've heard stories of the natives of the area seeing hairy woods-people, then they're more likely to interpret what they've seen in terms of the stories they've heard.
  #111  
Old 12-26-2018, 01:17 PM
Ashtura is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,260
It would probably be the same charge as shooting an escaped/wild monkey.
  #112  
Old 12-27-2018, 06:04 AM
Sangahyando is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 2,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Believe it or not, yes, I totally agree.

I dont know what "bigfoot" is. I agree I dont think it's an actual race of biped animal or north american ape or whatever species living out there but at the same time I feel like their is credible evidence that there is "something" there. I mean sightings and encounters go back to the days of the indians and many credible persons have written about them.

But your right, if it was "real" somebody would have shot or captured one by now. Also in basic terms of biology such an animal would need areas to feed, enough numbers to breed, and have a noticeable habitat. The man I mentioned earlier said the area he found the creature, unless it was a total herbivore, would not have had enough food to sustain them. He didnt know what to make of it.
We would seem to be much on the same page here. My position nowadays re the Bigfoot phenomenon (one which would likely attract scorn from many folk on the Dope) is that the least way-out scenario, is that the supernatural and / or extra-terrestrial, is somehow involved.

Any suggestion of seeing the matter thus, by the way, seems to be an abomination to hard-core flesh-and-blood-Bigfoot "believers". Those particular zealots hate the line that Bigfoot doesn't exist -- that the phenomenon is accounted for by a combination of folk-tales / misidentification / hallucination / deliberate pranks played / outright lying; but that hatred on their part, is a humdrum run-of-the-mill one compared to that toward any inkling whatever suggested, of the paranormal being in play -- the slightest touch of which, causes them really to bring out the torches and pitchforks.

The above has anyway been my impression -- gained from the Internet -- of American "Bigfootery" in recent years. The sheer craziness / fanaticism has caused me of late, to cease to frequent the websites concerned.
  #113  
Old 12-27-2018, 06:17 PM
Urbanredneck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sangahyando View Post
We would seem to be much on the same page here. My position nowadays re the Bigfoot phenomenon (one which would likely attract scorn from many folk on the Dope) is that the least way-out scenario, is that the supernatural and / or extra-terrestrial, is somehow involved.

Any suggestion of seeing the matter thus, by the way, seems to be an abomination to hard-core flesh-and-blood-Bigfoot "believers". Those particular zealots hate the line that Bigfoot doesn't exist -- that the phenomenon is accounted for by a combination of folk-tales / misidentification / hallucination / deliberate pranks played / outright lying; but that hatred on their part, is a humdrum run-of-the-mill one compared to that toward any inkling whatever suggested, of the paranormal being in play -- the slightest touch of which, causes them really to bring out the torches and pitchforks.

The above has anyway been my impression -- gained from the Internet -- of American "Bigfootery" in recent years. The sheer craziness / fanaticism has caused me of late, to cease to frequent the websites concerned.
I dont know if its supernatural, extra terrestrial or whatever but I feel an outside force of some kind is involved and it could well be one of those.

What gets me is that almost anytime somebody has tried to study these creatures using scientific methods they always come up short. the best photos and stories of encounters seem to come purely by chance. I dont think any real flesh and blood creature would be so good at avoiding detection but still make its presence known enough so people dont forget them.
  #114  
Old 08-01-2019, 05:06 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 11,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Update: someone recently nearly shot Bigfoot. The primate in question insists that he isn't Bigfoot, but that sounds exactly like what Bigfoot would say.
Well, it has happened again.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017