Depending on what the fines and charges are, I might do it. I’d come equipped with a ‘fake doe mating call’. and ‘fake deer attractant’ (Probably a relabeled can of WD40), and ‘fake salt lick’ (Potassium chloride). I would also print up a license to hunt fake deer.
There might be a fake deer blind (A small tent covered in astroturf and fake Christmas tree limbs) involved.
It’s probably for the best that I don’t own a gun.
In Russia, robotic moose shoots YOU! 
It’s admirable that you admit your error. However, don’t you think that that experience should result in some hesitance to make declarations like “it would never hold up in court”? People have been convicted on much less evidence.
The guy should have said he thought it was his brother-in-law. Everyone knows that brothers-in-law bear striking resemblance to large game animals to men with shotguns. It’s better than saying he was trying to shoot a robotic moose. Those things seem to be rarer than the real ones, and reproduce far less frequently.
You’re right acsenray…I should have said “It should never hold up in court.” Purely an opinion statement. Of course, there are burglars who have successfully won lawsuits for cuts sustained while breaking into someone’s house.
Are there, really? Cite?
Here is the actual law in question:
From the Nova Scotia Endangered Species Act 1998:
It’s pretty clear that attempting to kill a moose is specifically prohibited.
That takes me back! This may be of interest. Or not. Can you murder a corpse?
But how do you know if there was intent to murder in each of those cases? In all of those cases, you have to take the state of mind and intent of the shooter into consideration. The guy who says he was being threatened: was he really being threatened? Or is he a racist who assumed that the black guy he gunned down was “just about” to mug him? The guy with the prop gun? Maybe he has a grudge against the prop master, and switched the bullet himself to get him in trouble. The accidental discharge: how do you know it’s an accidental discharge? In all of these cases, the jury is going to have to make some measure of an assumption as to the state of mind of the accused, and his possible motives for what he’s done.
Yes, he could have done just that. And he may claim that in court. The thing is, there’s no particular reason the jury has to believe him when he says he wasn’t trying to kill anyone when he discharged a firearm at someone’s house. If the guy was standing on a porch, blazing away at a Jack’o’lantern right at his feet, he might be believed. If he was firing from across the street at a pumpkin only visibile as a silhouette through a drawn curtain, he might not. The “evidence” that he tried to kill me is that he showed up at my house with a gun and fired it. Mix in a good motive, and maybe a history of violence or threats against me, and that’s plenty for a conviction. That’s how the justice system works.
I know a guy who broke several hunting laws with one shot. He might have gotten away with it, too, but he was a stingy bonehead. He was hunting deer, on land he had permission to hunt on, when he saw brown hairy movement in the distance. He aimed and shot…a horse. It turned out, he shot the animal across a stream, (illegal) on the next property over, where he had no permission to hunt (illegal) and he wasn’t sure of his target (negligent.)
He went back later to offer to pay for the dead horse. The owner demanded $1000, and he had the nerve to say he wouldn’t pay that much. The farmer took him to court, where he not only paid for the horse, but he had his hunting license and gun taken away, along with a hefty fine. Watta marroon!
I for one welcome our Robotic Moose Overlords…
What?