That of course wasn’t a strawman. You’re just trying to avoid standing by what you posted. This isn’t about corruption in Zimbabwe, or whether Zimbabwe deserves “sympathy,” but about moral and legal culpability of the dentist. There might be some argument to be made about not obeying unjust laws in a corrupt country, but the laws in question are reasonable ones which promote conservation. Just because Zimbabwe is corrupt doesn’t give someone an excuse not to abide the laws they have that are good ones.
If I disobey the traffic laws here in Panama, I don’t think it puts me in the right just because I can get off with a bribe.
I’m not making excuses for assholes. I expect them to prove that the dentist knowingly violated Zimbabwe laws before condemning him for violating Zimbabwe laws. You know, innocent until proven guilty. YMMV.
That is correct - no warrant yet. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS or USFWS) want to talk to him. Possibly as an eyewitness, or just to clear up a few questions. Unless you know that the dentist has violated U.S. game laws, what reason would they provide a judge to issue a warrant? I’m not sure a judge would accept the “We don’t like dentists who hunt” gambit.
CNN has played fast and furious with the facts of popular cases in the past. You’re free to believe anything they say. I prefer substantiated proof.
Whether the laws are ever enforced or not is irrelevant. There are legal ways to hunt a lion. I’m not at all familiar with them, but if the Zimbabwe guides deceived Palmer, it’s hard to pin any blame on him.
“IF” the dentist had been shown forged documents that would cause a reasonable person to believe the hunt was legal and all fees had been paid, would ignorance of the law still apply?
This whole business has been / is extremely regrettable – but I have to feel: as often, a nine days’ wonder. Let’s hope that in animal heaven, where “they shall not hurt or destroy”, Cecil the Zimbabwean lion and Marius the Danish giraffe have met and become friends, and are swapping anecdotes about assorted things – including how unsatisfactorily humans often behave.
Last night I listened to someone who does trophy hunting. From what he told a group of us last night (over beers; this was a bar, not a lecture hall) there is a dance you do with your contacts there. They charge you a boatload of money, and they assume all kinds of risk for that money. You get plausible deniability, but everyone knows what is happening. You want to shoot an x, they set it up.
Dude had pics on his phone from trophy hunts. I enjoyed hearing his stories even though he’s not somebody I’d want as a friend. Or dentist. Or mechanic.
ETA: I was admiring his shoes. I asked if they were alligator and he said no, then changed the subject. My gf later told me they were faux sumpin.
Again, what’s your basis for the statement that “it appears” that the hunter and landowner conspired to defraud the dentist, aside from the dentist’s own statements? In saying “it appears” rather than “it’s possible” you seem to be saying that there is some actual evidence of fraud against the dentist on the part of the hunter and landowner. As far as I know, that has not been independently alleged.
You do seem to be bending over backward to think of ways that might excuse the guy’s behavior, when that’s not the most reasonable explanation. Why is that?
I’m not ready to say that the dentist was not involved in the illegal aspects of the lion hunt. Neither am I ready to say that the dentist was up to his eyeballs in poaching. There doesn’t appear to be enough actual evidence to make that decision, yet.
Do you have any proof that the dentist isn’t telling the truth. Is there ANY possibility in your mind, that the dentist might not be involved in the illegal actions of the professional hunter and the landowner? That could explain your inability to accept even the remotest possibility that the dentist might not be the outlaw you demand that he is.
I have no idea what actual evidence the Zimbabwe game officers have other than what has been reported by the media, the internet, and the animal-rights zealots. Some of it seems to be true. Some of it seems to be missing.
I’m willing to wait for the whole story to unfold BEFORE I condemn the dentist. YMMV.
You really don’t get it? The guy has been guilty of illegal hunting in the past. Therefore, he is the type of person who illegally hunts. Since he has shown himself willing to do illegal hunts, claims that he thought this hunt was legal seem dubious at best.
Throw in the other evidence, such as how it’s not like these guys operate out in the open (where they would get caught) and the actual events of the hunt, plus the fact that he doens’t seem unusually stupid, and it seems unlikely he was not aware of the dubious legality of this hunt.
It may not meet legal standards, but it is how most people judge things. The Boy Who Cried Wolf is a story we are told growing up for a reason.
I didn’t say there “wasn’t the remotest possibility” that he might not have been aware of the illegal activity. However, based on the fact that the guy is highly experienced in hunting in Africa, and his track record on obeying the law isn’t that good, I do think that that is in fact a rather remote possibility that he would have been completely unaware that something might not be on the up-and-up. Given his experience, I think at best he’s guilty of not doing due diligence.
What the heck is that suppose to mean??? That you prefer to wallow in rumor and innuendo rather than have to deal with pertinent legal rulings, or facts, or logic? Are you concerned that you might learn something interesting or relevant? Personally, I believe “Bricker’d up” means the thread is interesting and educational.
AFAIK, there are still plenty of other websites where emotional diatribe is the primary means of communication.
What I want know is: Does going into hiding take away any of the macho-man-tough-guy street cred this fine specimen of a man painstakingly earned via his harrowing hunt?
