Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-13-2014, 03:17 PM
kk fusion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 475

What if somebody DID shoot Bigfoot?


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?
  #2  
Old 01-13-2014, 03:21 PM
Musicat is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sturgeon Bay, WI USA
Posts: 21,141
How about crossing that bridge when we come to it?

Since Bigfoot is as mythical as elves, leprechauns or satyrs, why not include them in your discussion? What would be the legal implication of killing one of them?
  #3  
Old 01-13-2014, 03:25 PM
Ethilrist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Saint Paul
Posts: 26,900
In a superhero campaign, we determined that killing undead amounted to littering. Since it was aiding the public good, the police decided not to prosecute, but we were required to clean up after ourselves from then on.
  #4  
Old 01-13-2014, 03:28 PM
dolphinboy's Avatar
dolphinboy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Bigfork, Montana
Posts: 4,456
Were you actively trying to track down and kill (as opposed to capture) one or did you happen to find one going through your trash can?

You can always claim self defense and force them to prove it was premeditated.
  #5  
Old 01-13-2014, 03:34 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by dolphinboy View Post
Were you actively trying to track down and kill (as opposed to capture) one or did you happen to find one going through your trash can?

You can always claim self defense and force them to prove it was premeditated.
Why would someone throw away a perfectly good Bigfoot?
  #6  
Old 01-13-2014, 03:35 PM
Laggard is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,713
It would be explained as either being a bear or a weather balloon. Both of which would not be considered murder. Wasn't there a group that was trying to get bigfoot classified as a human entity? My guess is that it would not be considered murder.

Last edited by Laggard; 01-13-2014 at 03:39 PM.
  #7  
Old 01-13-2014, 03:37 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicat View Post
How about crossing that bridge when we come to it?

Since Bigfoot is as mythical as elves, leprechauns or satyrs, why not include them in your discussion? What would be the legal implication of killing one of them?
Moderator Note

The question is not on Bigfoot specifically, but on the legal definition of human. Threadshitting of this kind is not helpful. No warning issued, but don't do this again.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator
  #8  
Old 01-13-2014, 03:43 PM
watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 8,499
I don't think killing BigFoot is regulated by any Dept of Fish and Wildlife. Therefore, you can shoot and kill them all you want, as though they were sparrows or some other non-regulated animal. If the rubber skin is pulled back and you find human DNA, you'd get a bye for accidental shooting.
  #9  
Old 01-13-2014, 04:13 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,429
If sasquatches exist, they're surely very rare. Could you perhaps fall afoul of the Endangered Species Act? Is that based on an explicit list, or does it include standards by which a hitherto-unknown creature could be considered endangered?
  #10  
Old 01-13-2014, 04:17 PM
barbitu8 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 5,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
I don't think killing BigFoot is regulated by any Dept of Fish and Wildlife. Therefore, you can shoot and kill them all you want, as though they were sparrows or some other non-regulated animal. If the rubber skin is pulled back and you find human DNA, you'd get a bye for accidental shooting.
How can you get a bye for accidental shooting when the shooting was intentional? Perhaps some other defense is possible. But the real question in the OP is that if BigFoot really exists and is some form of homosapien or other thought to be extinct homo would that be murder? I saw on the National Geographic channel recently that it is hypothesized that a primitive homosapien tribe which migrated from Africa settled in a sparse area in southwest Asia, accounting for sightings in that area.
  #11  
Old 01-13-2014, 04:22 PM
Trinopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,861
H. Beam Piper explored this in "Little Fuzzy." He concluded that sapience and personhood create legal rights which apply retroactively. So, if on March 1, I shoot a Bigfoot, and on June 1st, the courts declare the species sapient and possessing civil rights, I would be guilty of murder.

Thing is, I think Piper was full of crap on that. In the U.S., today, that kind of ex post facto interpretation is forbidden. A "reasonable person" could not know that the Bigfoot was a "person" under the law.

Somebody might go after the shooter for violating the terms of his hunting license... ("Does it say 'Bigfoot' anywhere on this card?")

Obviously, the "court of public opinion" would weigh in. Many would be angry at the shooter. Others would excuse him. Damn messy. He'd be invited on every stupid weekend or morning talk show in the country!
  #12  
Old 01-13-2014, 04:24 PM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is offline
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 15,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
If sasquatches exist, they're surely very rare. Could you perhaps fall afoul of the Endangered Species Act? Is that based on an explicit list, or does it include standards by which a hitherto-unknown creature could be considered endangered?
Species have to be explicitly placed on the list to be covered by the Endangered Species Act, either by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (though individuals or groups can petition those two agencies to place a species on the list). AFAICT, there's no provision for protecting a hitherto-unknown creature, and it takes quite a lot of bureaucratic work to get a species onto the list.
  #13  
Old 01-13-2014, 04:33 PM
dstarfire is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Tacoma, WA; USA
Posts: 1,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
If sasquatches exist, they're surely very rare. Could you perhaps fall afoul of the Endangered Species Act?
Quote:
Originally Posted by barbitu8 View Post
How can you get a bye for accidental shooting when the shooting was intentional?
Endangered Species have to be explicitly declared to be subject to legal protection.

The law recognizes (at least) two different types of intent: intent to perform a specific action (i.e. firing a gun), and intent to cause an (usually illegal) outcome (another person is wounded by your gun shot). There's actually special words (latin, of course) for the two different types, but I don't do that elitist bs.

I'm sure one of our legal dopers can provide a better explanation later.
  #14  
Old 01-13-2014, 04:36 PM
Musicat is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sturgeon Bay, WI USA
Posts: 21,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
Moderator Note

The question is not on Bigfoot specifically, but on the legal definition of human. Threadshitting of this kind is not helpful. No warning issued, but don't do this again.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Tweet! Time out! The OP's question directly relates to mythical beings, i.e., "surviving individual of a hominid sideline." Can you say that elves and leprechauns are NOT hominids, but Bigfeet are?

It is not fighting ignorance to exclude my questions in this discussion, and this is not threadshitting. It is exactly what this forum is intended to combat.
  #15  
Old 01-13-2014, 05:00 PM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 12,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
H. Beam Piper explored this in "Little Fuzzy." He concluded that sapience and personhood create legal rights which apply retroactively. So, if on March 1, I shoot a Bigfoot, and on June 1st, the courts declare the species sapient and possessing civil rights, I would be guilty of murder.

Thing is, I think Piper was full of crap on that. In the U.S., today, that kind of ex post facto interpretation is forbidden. A "reasonable person" could not know that the Bigfoot was a "person" under the law.
It's not quite so ex post facto, though. Federation law defines "murder" as "the unjustifiable killing of a sapient being" (or something along those lines), which is not ex post facto because that's the law and has been for years if not centuries at that point. The question becomes, would a reasonable person know a Fuzzy and/or Bigfoot was a sapient being? Under Federation law, if you land on Planet Ikanam, see some hairy humanoid roasting meat over a fire; said being turns to you and says "Ellohay, angerstray! Ouldway ouyay ikelay omesay ofay isthay eatmay?" and you respond by shooting the aforesaid being, you're almost certainly on the hook for murder, since said being a.) appears to be capable of building fires and b.) appears to possess the facility of speech; and "talk and build a fire" is the basic rule-of-thumb (though not without exceptions) for determining sapience.
__________________
"In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves." -- Carl Sagan

Ceterum censeo imperium Trumpi esse delendam
  #16  
Old 01-13-2014, 05:01 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicat View Post
Tweet! Time out! The OP's question directly relates to mythical beings, i.e., "surviving individual of a hominid sideline." Can you say that elves and leprechauns are NOT hominids, but Bigfeet are?

It is not fighting ignorance to exclude my questions in this discussion, and this is not threadshitting. It is exactly what this forum is intended to combat.
[Moderating]

While finding a hypothetical "surviving individual of a hominid sideline" may be very unlikely, it is not impossible. Homo floresensis could conceivably survived into fairly recent times (although they pretty certainly don't exist any more). As I said, while the OP linked to a story about Bigfoot (which I agree does not exist), it is not specifically about that creature; and the only one who has brought up elves and leprechauns is you. In any case, there is a legitimate question regarding on whether human status is defined legally. There's no justification for dismissing the question out of hand.

If you wish to discuss my moderation of this topic further, take it to ATMB.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

Last edited by Colibri; 01-13-2014 at 05:03 PM.
  #17  
Old 01-13-2014, 05:16 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,452
Vercors, a French writer, put out You Shall Know Them in 1952, in which a scientist deliberately kills a newly found hominid in order to provoke a legal battle over their status. A classic if almost unknown novel in the U.S. with the best paperback cover ever. Ever. It was turned into the 1970 movie Skullduggery, which is equally unknown, at least to me.

In 1988, Roger McBride Allen wrote a very good novel titled Orphans of Creation, in which a scientist deliberately kills a newly found hominid in order to provoke a legal battle over their status. He swore when I asked him that he had never heard of Vercors. And I believe him. The logic of the plot is overwhelming.

The Allen book is one of my picks for a science fiction novel to turn into a film. Other than some prosthetics no special effects budget is needed, but it would hit every hot button.
  #18  
Old 01-13-2014, 05:21 PM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 12,110
(Bearing in mind that I am not a lawyer...)

The Texas Penal Code defines homicide as "intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence [causing] the death of an individual" and defines "individual" as "a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth"--but I don't see that it defines "human being". (Note that the recent alleged shooting of a Bigfoot was reported to have happened in Texas, not up in the Pacific Northwest like you might think.)

A multi-tentacled bug-eyed creature from outer space, I think you'd walk, even if all the E.T. did was walk out of its spaceship and say (in English) "Greetings, Earth-Human! We come in peace!" (Of course you might get the entire planet blasted to smithereens.) But conceivably a court might find that anything capable of operating a spaceship and greeting people in English counts (for legal purposes) as a "human being". (Especially if the Galactic Federation has a giant spaceship hovering over Austin.)

With something like Homo floresiensis, or a hypothetical Bigfoot that turned out to be a close relative of ours (a fellow hominid)...who knows? It might sway the legal system if, on the one hand, you just saw (and shot) a hairy (but bipedal) critter skulking around in the woods--even if it was subsequently found out that Bigfoots (Bigfeet?) are advanced beings with their own language and culture and so on; versus you stumble across a Bigfoot and he says to you "Oh, dear me--This is most unfortunate! We Sasquatch have nothing against you Hairless Ones, but we prefer to keep to ourselves--I don't suppose I could possibly prevail upon you to just forget about this whole thing?" and you reply "Screw it!" and shoot him. (And, say, you have your video camera recording the entire exchange.)
  #19  
Old 01-13-2014, 05:25 PM
randompattern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Central IL. USA
Posts: 832
Even though the shooter was a licensed hunter, he wasn't really hunting in the traditional sense. I'm pretty sure he didn't have a Bigfoot hunting license so I would imagine he'd qualify for at least a fine. That said, if he was really interested in "proving" Bigfoot is real, couldn't he have shot it with a tranquilizer gun just as easily?
  #20  
Old 01-13-2014, 06:19 PM
jbaker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 379
The short answer is that our legal system is ill-prepared for intelligent beings that are not homo sapiens. Now, if Bigfoot turned out to be a hominin - let's say a surviving Neanderthal - then a court would probably find it easy to conclude that he or she is a human being, individual, or natural person (the three terms most frequently used in the law) and protected against murder. The issue becomes harder if Bigfoot is more distantly related than indisputably nonhuman animals, and it seems more likely that a court would rule that such a creature is not a natural person and therefore its killer cannot be prosecuted for murder.

The issue may well arise in the future. At some point we will probably be able to enhance animals to human intelligence, and of course artificial intelligence seems inevitable. Extraterrestrial intelligent beings are also a possibility, though I consider them a remote one. (I don't question that there are extraterrestrial intelligent beings; I just don't expect to see them on Earth.) Existing legal standards are not equal to these eventualities.
  #21  
Old 01-13-2014, 06:58 PM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 19,517
I believe that NY has a law against hunting "Champ", the Lake Champlain lake monster, I think VT also has this but Canada does not. That sort of sets a precedent of hunting/killing creatures that are rumored to exist.
  #22  
Old 01-13-2014, 06:58 PM
bibliophage is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Maine
Posts: 10,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
I don't think killing BigFoot is regulated by any Dept of Fish and Wildlife. Therefore, you can shoot and kill them all you want, as though they were sparrows or some other non-regulated animal.
Here in Maine, mammal species that are not explicitly listed as game species cannot be hunted legally. I think the rules are similar in Alaska, but I'm not sure about other states.
  #23  
Old 01-13-2014, 07:13 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 81,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
I believe that NY has a law against hunting "Champ", the Lake Champlain lake monster, I think VT also has this but Canada does not. That sort of sets a precedent of hunting/killing creatures that are rumored to exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstarfire View Post
Endangered Species have to be explicitly declared to be subject to legal protection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenobi 65 View Post
Species have to be explicitly placed on the list to be covered by the Endangered Species Act, either by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (though individuals or groups can petition those two agencies to place a species on the list). AFAICT, there's no provision for protecting a hitherto-unknown creature, and it takes quite a lot of bureaucratic work to get a species onto the list.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
If sasquatches exist, they're surely very rare. Could you perhaps fall afoul of the Endangered Species Act? Is that based on an explicit list, or does it include standards by which a hitherto-unknown creature could be considered endangered?
This makes me wonder if any state has a law that generally prohibits the killing of an animal belonging to a previously unknown species. I think it could be assumed any such species must be relatively rare in order to have been undiscovered.
  #24  
Old 01-13-2014, 07:14 PM
OldOlds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 780
Quote:
Originally Posted by barbitu8 View Post
How can you get a bye for accidental shooting when the shooting was intentional? Perhaps some other defense is possible. But the real question in the OP is that if BigFoot really exists and is some form of homosapien or other thought to be extinct homo would that be murder? I saw on the National Geographic channel recently that it is hypothesized that a primitive homosapien tribe which migrated from Africa settled in a sparse area in southwest Asia, accounting for sightings in that area.
Well, if I am someplace where I am authorized to be hunting deer, and some idiot decides to prance through the area in a reasonably convincing deer costume, I bet I would not end up charged with anything serious if anything at all. So I think the human in bigfoot costume would be a similar situation.

Is what you are allowed to hunt defined by exclusion or inclusion? I think that's where you'd get your answer, but in no event can I imagine the law defining a hitherto unknown species as human or even anything more special than any other large mammal.
  #25  
Old 01-13-2014, 08:38 PM
ZenBeam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 8,858
I wouldn't assume Bigfoot wasn't human. I'd think a DNA analysis would be performed. and that it might be able to determine that Bigfoot could interbreed with humans.
  #26  
Old 01-13-2014, 09:16 PM
Duckster's Avatar
Duckster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,656
In Skamania County, Washington, the entire county has been declared an official Bigfoot reserve. Killing Bigfoot in the county is a gross misdemeanor punishable by a fine up to $1,000 and may subject the guilty party to six months in jail. If DNA testing reveals the victim to be humanoid the DA will prosecute under existing homicide laws.

Big Foot Ordinance 1984-2 (PDF Warning.)
  #27  
Old 01-13-2014, 10:17 PM
SeldomSeen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Valley of Ki-moo-e-nim
Posts: 1,344
It appears to call for a $10,000 fine and up to five years imprisonment:
Quote
Quote:
There are two county ordinances in place regarding Bigfoot. The first, number 69-01, dated April 1, 1969, reflects a fine of $10,000 and/or five years imprisonment for the wanton slaying of Yeti, Sasquatch, Bigfoot or “giant hairy ape”. The ordinance defining the complete boundaries of Skamania County as a “Sasquatch Refuge” was made law on April 16, 1984.
Nearby Whatcom County also has a resolution on the books making it a sasquatch reserve as well, but doesn't seem to attach any penalty.
SS
  #28  
Old 01-14-2014, 12:06 AM
chappachula is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
A classic if almost unknown novel in the U.S. with the best paperback cover ever. Ever.
(sorry for an off-topic post, but I just gotta say "Thanks")
That really is the best book cover ever published !
  #29  
Old 01-14-2014, 07:49 AM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 19,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
This makes me wonder if any state has a law that generally prohibits the killing of an animal belonging to a previously unknown species. I think it could be assumed any such species must be relatively rare in order to have been undiscovered.
I don't think you can say that a previously unknown species is necessarily rare as it could be just hidden among a known species, similar and common enough that they are assumed to be the same as the known species till someone looks into it.
  #30  
Old 01-14-2014, 08:52 AM
ZenBeam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 8,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
I don't think you can say that a previously unknown species is necessarily rare as it could be just hidden among a known species, similar and common enough that they are assumed to be the same as the known species till someone looks into it.
So you're saying... some of the scruffy-looking people wandering around downtown are really Bigfoots? I had no idea, but it all makes sense now.
  #31  
Old 01-14-2014, 09:10 AM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
I don't think you can say that a previously unknown species is necessarily rare as it could be just hidden among a known species, similar and common enough that they are assumed to be the same as the known species till someone looks into it.
On Earth, in our present time, no large creature falls into such a category. They've all been very thoroughly explored.

You need to postulate a different species so similar that doctors or veterinarians or zoologists would never notice in a lifetime in practice (and not show up in DNA testing as well) yet be so divergent as to make it impossible for them to interbreed. That's a high bar. Bigfoot certainly couldn't clear it, not even in the pole vault.
  #32  
Old 01-14-2014, 09:28 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
On Earth, in our present time, no large creature falls into such a category. They've all been very thoroughly explored.

You need to postulate a different species so similar that doctors or veterinarians or zoologists would never notice in a lifetime in practice (and not show up in DNA testing as well) yet be so divergent as to make it impossible for them to interbreed. That's a high bar.
Actually, a new species of tapir, the largest kind of animal in the New World tropics, was recently described. While somewhat rare, it may actually be rather widespread in Amazonia, and was well known to local people in the area it occurs. The first specimen was collected almost 100 years ago by Theodore Roosevelt. It was overlooked by zoologists due to its similarity to other tapirs, but once you know what to look for it can be recognized. Genetic testing and analysis of skeletal material demonstrated that it is a valid species.

The African Forest Elephant was split as a separate species from the Savanna Elephant fairly recently. Zoologists had long recognized them as separate types, but didn't think the differences rose to the level of different species.

The Chacoan Peccary was discovered in 1971. It's fairly common where it occurs and was known to local people, but was overlooked by scientists because it was assumed to be one of the known species. It actually belongs to a completely different genus, and one long assumed to be extinct.

I wouldn't rule out future research discovering other "cryptic" species of large mammals, especially in remote areas where there has been little research.

Of course, none of this applies to unknown hominid species.

Last edited by Colibri; 01-14-2014 at 09:34 AM.
  #33  
Old 01-14-2014, 09:31 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZenBeam View Post
I wouldn't assume Bigfoot wasn't human. I'd think a DNA analysis would be performed. and that it might be able to determine that Bigfoot could interbreed with humans.
That's an interesting point, but it still wouldn't prevent us from defining BF as non-human. Coyotes and wolves can and do interbreed, but are not considered the same species. You'd have to establish that BF interbreeds with modern humans on a regular basis to convince the scientific community that the two populations are the same species.
  #34  
Old 01-14-2014, 09:34 AM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,452
That's fascinating news. It's fun to always have surprises out there.

But it also confirms my point that scientists are busily checking everything they can get their hands on, and genetic testing has transformed the field.

No Bigfoot could possibly be among humans in this fashion. If one exists it is necessarily rare. Vampires, though...

I'm replying to Colibri, of course.

Last edited by Exapno Mapcase; 01-14-2014 at 09:35 AM.
  #35  
Old 01-14-2014, 09:42 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
That's an interesting point, but it still wouldn't prevent us from defining BF as non-human. Coyotes and wolves can and do interbreed, but are not considered the same species. You'd have to establish that BF interbreeds with modern humans on a regular basis to convince the scientific community that the two populations are the same species.
Further, the BSC (biological species concept) really only works for animals "in the wild". Humans sort of make it difficult to determine what "in the wild" means. Since this hasn't been tested, I think scientists are able to make up new rules specifically related to humans if and when a new population of potentially non-H. sapiens is discovered.

Last edited by John Mace; 01-14-2014 at 09:42 AM.
  #36  
Old 01-14-2014, 10:13 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,429
Besides which, there's currently no genetic test that can determine whether two specimens can interbreed: The only way to know is to test it directly. Humans are closer genetically to both chimp species than many other pairs of species that can interbreed, and yet so far as we know we can't.
  #37  
Old 01-14-2014, 10:28 AM
gytalf2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 3,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
If sasquatches exist, they're surely very rare. Could you perhaps fall afoul of the Endangered Species Act? Is that based on an explicit list, or does it include standards by which a hitherto-unknown creature could be considered endangered?

The person who did the shooting would ultimately be seen as doing science a favor, though, if he indeed provided the body to a university -- providing confirmation of a heretofore unknown primate. It would be the discovery of the century! Surely the hunter would be exempted from prosecution. I dunno!

After official confirmation of the species, the second person who shot one would be in a load of trouble, I think...
  #38  
Old 01-14-2014, 10:41 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
No Bigfoot could possibly be among humans in this fashion. If one exists it is necessarily rare.
I dunno. I've had my suspicions about some people I've seen on the Subway....

All known human populations can interbreed, and all that have been genetically tested are part of the same species (even if some populations contain alleles that indicate past interbreeding with Neanderthals and others).

One could speculate that an extremely isolated human population that has never been tested genetically, such as the North Sentinelese in the Andaman islands, could have some genetic variant that would make interbreeding with other humans impossible, but that is unlikely in the extreme. (Anyway, we know that other Andamanese who have been in contact with other humans are part of our own species, so there is no reason to think the Sentinelese are any different.)
  #39  
Old 01-14-2014, 11:51 AM
Diceman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Suburbs of Detroit, MI
Posts: 9,859
The prosection would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what you killed is a person. Given that Bigfoot is (presumably) genetically distinct from any living human population, this would be an extremely tall order. Information on the Bigfoot's intelligence and behavior would consist almost entirely of antecdotes and pure speculation.

I think any attempt at a homicide prosecution would almost certainly fail. Most likely, no prosecutor would even attempt this and would pursue a charge of cruelty to animals or a violation of hunting laws.
  #40  
Old 01-14-2014, 12:56 PM
RedSwinglineOne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Silicon valley
Posts: 1,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldOlds View Post
Well, if I am someplace where I am authorized to be hunting deer, and some idiot decides to prance through the area in a reasonably convincing deer costume, I bet I would not end up charged with anything serious if anything at all. So I think the human in bigfoot costume would be a similar situation.
I think the difference might be that because Bigfoot has never been proven to exist, (one could argue that) something that looks like Bigfoot is more likely a person in a costume than an actual Bigfoot. At the very least it could be considered reckless to shoot at an unidentified upright walking creature. I'm not sure it is a valid defense to say, "I saw something I had never seen before so I shot it!".
  #41  
Old 01-14-2014, 02:30 PM
OldOlds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 780
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedSwinglineOne View Post
I think the difference might be that because Bigfoot has never been proven to exist, (one could argue that) something that looks like Bigfoot is more likely a person in a costume than an actual Bigfoot. At the very least it could be considered reckless to shoot at an unidentified upright walking creature. I'm not sure it is a valid defense to say, "I saw something I had never seen before so I shot it!".
So I think you bring up a fair point- I was looking at it from the perspective that it would not be reasonable to assume "Hey- that thing I am shooting at must be a person in costume," but it is also true that license to hunt something does not mean license to shoot anything.

I was really trying to zero in on the idea that being tricked into killing someone is not the same as trying to kill someone, which is in response to the statement that if a slain bigfoot were determined to be a person in costume the assailant would be prosecuted for murder. My general sense is that the authorities take the whole set of circumstances into account.
  #42  
Old 01-14-2014, 10:01 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,831
Being shot isn't the only risk of wearing a Bigfoot costume.

Bigfoot hoax turns deadly: Montana man dressed as sasquatch to provoke sightings struck and killed by car
  #43  
Old 01-14-2014, 11:36 PM
cmyk's Avatar
cmyk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Mitt
Posts: 14,226
BANG!

"Old man Jenkins?! Zoinks, he would've gotten away with it too, if I didn't shoot him, Scoob!"
  #44  
Old 01-14-2014, 11:57 PM
Johnny L.A. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 61,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by dolphinboy View Post
or did you happen to find one going through your trash can?
That would be Eerie.
  #45  
Old 01-15-2014, 11:53 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedSwinglineOne View Post
I think the difference might be that because Bigfoot has never been proven to exist, (one could argue that) something that looks like Bigfoot is more likely a person in a costume than an actual Bigfoot. At the very least it could be considered reckless to shoot at an unidentified upright walking creature. I'm not sure it is a valid defense to say, "I saw something I had never seen before so I shot it!".
If you had a license, it would probably be better to say you thought you were shooting at a deer than at a Bigfoot. As long as the Bigfoot wasn't wearing a fluorescent orange vest, you would probably get off.
  #46  
Old 01-15-2014, 01:22 PM
outlierrn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: republic of california
Posts: 5,667
It's coming right for us
  #47  
Old 01-17-2014, 08:43 AM
vontsira is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by randompattern View Post
Even though the shooter was a licensed hunter, he wasn't really hunting in the traditional sense. I'm pretty sure he didn't have a Bigfoot hunting license so I would imagine he'd qualify for at least a fine. That said, if he was really interested in "proving" Bigfoot is real, couldn't he have shot it with a tranquilizer gun just as easily?
Most of the points and thoughts brought up in this thread, have been discussed ad infinitum for years among the community of students of the Bigfoot mystery. The general consensus there about the use of tranquilizer darting to secure a Bigfoot specimen, would seem to be: the trouble is, that hard knowledge of the traits and characteristics of this alleged creature, is minimal-to-non-existent. Tranquilizer-gun activity requires a knowledge of the exact dose needed; which in respect of Bigfoot, nobody knows. Too weak a dose, would be liable to mean an extremely pissed-off Bigfoot in close proximity; too strong a dose -- a dead Bigfoot.
  #48  
Old 04-14-2017, 12:33 PM
ElderSign is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 241
Someone may have killed an unknown hominid/proto-human:

According to the July 17, 1899 Bismarck Daily Tribune, Archie Brower, an owner of a tent show, got into a fight with his attraction- a freak he dubbed the missing link. The newspaper described the brute as being higher than a monkey but below a human. Brower got angry at the being and hit it over the with a heavy club and killed it.

The police arrested him and he was charged with murder. His defense lawyers claimed that missing link was not human, so Brower should not be charged. Brower claimed the beast was really a monkey. Not sure why he got into an argument with one and murdered it though. The magistrate allowed a grand jury to decide.

I have no follow up to what happened.
  #49  
Old 04-14-2017, 03:38 PM
mixdenny is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Cleveland suburbs
Posts: 1,932
That seems to be the only mention of Archie Brower in that newspaper, at least what issues are digitized.

Dennis
  #50  
Old 04-14-2017, 03:45 PM
jbaker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 379
Other newspapers on Newspapers.com talk about the Archie Brower story, but don't really add much to the story. I assume that it was subsequently determined that the missing link was not human, but that is not confirmed by the available record.
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 02:52 AM.

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