Game laws are probably your best bet to get him punished for this, if that’s your goal. Where I hunted whitetail deer the applicable regulation was:
It is illegal to discharge a firearm, bow or crossbow:within 500 feet (for a firearm), 250 feet (for a crossbow) or 150 feet (for a bow) of a dwelling, farm building or structure in occupation or use unless you own it, lease it, are an immediate member of the family, an employee, or have the owner’s consent.
It was also illegal to discharge a firearm so that so that the load or arrow passes over any part of a public highway.
These will vary by state so you might have to look up your own hunting regulations.
I was addressing the possible legal issues. Those are almost certainly going to be different for a fox than for a dog.
It’s not at all clear to me how the OP feels about the individual fox; how the fox felt about the OP; whether the species is endangered, legally and/or in practice, in that area; whether the species is in excess of the carrying capacity in that area; whether the particular fox might have had immature cubs to feed; whether the shooter really thought he was doing the neighborhood a favor or whether he just thinks it’s fun to kill creatures. And all of those issues would be relevant to my particular reaction to the death of this specific fox. But most of them have no relevance to whether law enforcement’s likely to take the matter seriously, and the one that might would only be applicable if the law says it’s endangered (though the carrying capacity and the possible cubs might indirectly affect the length and/or existence of a fox hunting season).
I understand why you’d say so. However, there’s a strong argument for using lead. As Roy Peter Clark (journalist, author of journalism textbooks, and instructor at the Poynton Institute [which operates Politifact]) says:
My Twitter followers and some Poynter colleagues who prefer lede attribute their allegiance to old-school sensibilities, tradition, and a desire to retain and pass along the dialect of the tribe. These are charming, perhaps even whimsical impulses, but they have no historical basis or practical applications.
‘Lede’ is an invention of linotype romanticists, not something used in newsrooms of the linotype era.”
His article contains a link to an excellent piece by Howard Owens. I think you’ll find both interesting. I certainly did.
I don’t want to hijack the thread, so I’ll stop here.
And why was he acquitted? Because it was decided that the people he shot were actively attacking him. The guy with the gun convinced the jury he needed to defend himself against them. In your situation, you’re not Kyle Rittenhouse, you’re the people he was not guilty of killing. The guy in your driveway is Kyle and you’re going to be the one attacking him. This guy won’t have a hard time proving (based on the dead fox and even testimony from neighbors) that he was hunting, you attacked him and he defended himself with his hunting rifle.
As was said a hundred times in the other thread, someone doesn’t pose a threat based on nothing more than the fact that they’re carrying a gun. You don’t have to like it, you don’t have to be comfortable with it, you can even be scared, but you can’t kill them for it.
Something else I was just thinking…and this plays into the “my fox” thing. When the dispatcher said “domestic” I’m guessing they meant (or they said but you misremembered) “civil”. As in ‘this is between the two of you and not a police matter’. IOW, you told the dispatcher that someone shot a fox on your property and that it’s “your” fox, but it’s not a pet and the dispatcher essentially told you to sue the neighbor. Probably, at least in part, because the dispatcher didn’t understand the situation…because it doesn’t make sense.
To be clear, it’s a way for the police to get him to stop, not an excuse for the OP to be, as they say, judge, jury and executioner.
Oh, interesting. I was looking up the rules regarding BB guns in my state, and pretty much the ONLY restriction was that it’s illegal to fire the bb across a public road or such that it damages public property. (I assume the regular laws about hurting people and their property also apply, but weren’t explicitly stated within the law on BB guns.)
The fox was part of my existence. I seldom saw him, but when I did it was a beautiful surprise I had an investment in the fox. Over a couple of months he caught and consumed all 5 of my young ducks. It was a contest that he won. He stole eggs until I tripled the wire on the lower fence. But, he also keeps the rats and mice down. He has as much right to be here as I do.
Right, but I’m addressing the emotional issue. It’s going to be different from someone just shooting some random vermin in your yard to someone killing something to which you have an emotional attachment to.
If someone kills my dog, I’m going to be pissed, and may not be entirely rational in my reaction. If someone feels the same way about a fox, then I can understand them being pissed and not entirely rational in their reaction.
That the fox is not protected by the law the same way that a legally owned dog is would just make the situation even more frustrating.
That’s why I am wondering if the OP is actually essentially grieving the loss of a loved animal companion, and acting out in that fashion.
No. What matters is who started the altercation. If you start the altercation, you can’t claim self-defense.
And the jury decided that it was the black men trying to defend themselves from the white guy with a huge gun who started the altercation. Thus self-defense was allowed.
We saw the same situation with Zimmerman and Martin. The black guy was scared for his life and defending himself from the guy who approached him with a gun, but Zimmerman gets off as “self defense.”
It defies common sense. Clearly the guy with the gun who intimidates the other people is the one who started it, but they get off.
Sure, the OP’s scenario is one where he would get in trouble. But it’s still no less stupid than what happened at this trial. It’s no less stupid than all of the other times where a white person kills a black person and it gets counted as “self defense.”
The OP is far from the only one who has noticed the problems with self-defense in our legal system. Even people in that thread you talked about who said he would get off admitted that this was a fucked up result. And it’s clearly not a one-off.
What happened there should not have counted as self-defense. Just like the OP (hypothetically) trying run this guy over should not count as self-defense. The comparison does make sense—if you’re willing to try rather than just assume the OP’s is an idiot.
Logically it makes sense even if the OP is an idiot.
I had to move the car a few minutes ago and I reflected on the scenario. If there was a guy at the end of the driveway holding a rifle I would be startled. WTF is he doing there and why the rifle? I could wave and say something innocuous like “Hi, can I help you?” or I could get in the car and sucker him into a situation like Rittenhouse did to Rosenbaum. All things are negotiable and KR could have calmed the situation. But, Rittenhouse is not prudent and he has two major flaws: he is stupid (high school drop out) and he believes his own bull shit. That’s a fatal combination.
I, on the other hand, am at least prudent. So, I probably wouldn’t do it,
You’ll have to expand on that. I don’t follow how a handicapped placard, in your car, has anything to do with you being able to kill someone because they have a gun. Besides, the very fact that you are discussing ways to defend yourself implies you do, in fact, have defenses.
That’s my point. Crane is specifically using the Rittenhouse acquittal as the reason he should be allowed to defend himself against the guy with the gun. My point is that Rittenhouse was not guilty. In Crane’s scenario, Crane isn’t Rittenhouse, the guy with the gun in his driveway is.
I guess I still don’t understand how the Rittenhouse verdict would apply to you in your situation. From my POV, the Rittenhouse verdict would allow the guy with the gun to shoot you if he felt threatened, not the other way around. If Kyle was killed first, while we’ll never know how that would play out in court, it would be much more applicable to you.
Over in the other thread, there’s some discussion as whether the KR verdict gives the green-light to other people who would take up their arms and become self-appointed vigilantes. This is being widely debated in the public press as well.
OP’s thesis here seems to suggest that might be so.
This is a good post, and I think you are spot on. The OP had an ongoing relationship with the fox, based on:
And it makes all the emotional sense in the world that he’s thrashing out at the injustice that some asshole just murdered the fox he cared about, and got away with it.
That’s fair, but startled does not equal threatened. He would have to take an overt act above and beyond legal carry to be an actual threat. There are legal ways to keep this guy off your property without running him over with your car.
Concentrate on the fact that he fired a gun on your property. The police can and will take notice of that if you report it properly and don’t confuse them with all the stuff about a fox.