https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2019/12/03/black-bear-attack-stopped-45-acp/ Guy runs into a black bear on the 2nd floor of his motel. Bear attacks him. He shoots. Bear flees. So if it's a good shoot, you have nothing to worry about! However, the bear's attorney is filing suit as the right to .... Ok, I'll stop, the story is real though.
If look around the web on this incident, you'll find some very very strange local commentary about how this was a well known bear who regularly wandered up and down/in-and-out of the motel and its halls and various balconies.... Really nice bear. If so -- and the locals and motel did nothing to restrict/eliminate the bear -- not only is the motel in trouble, but the man can make a case against the town itself. Ought to interesting as it plays out.
Intentionally letting and encouraging an Alex predator wander around and in a motel does not strike me as being on the "smart" end of the intelligence scale.
I have seen a video of that bear at that motel. I agree, if it was a regular visitor something should have been done long before it got to this point.
Sounds to me like somebody "feeds the bear". Also a perfect example of "Just because it's a good shoot, don't be surprised, when there are repurcussions.".
It sounds to me like if there was a trigger for the attack, the dog was the trigger. I actually feel for the bear. But I am glad neither man nor dog was injured.
How can they cite him for reckless endangerment and unlawful discharge of a firearm when he shot at a BEAR that was charging him?!?!?!
A new twist on the “bear thread”.... That is 98% of the reason we live in such a litigious society. Stupid people do stupid things and are surprised or angry when a rational person shows up and is concerned about it. Yet somehow the rational person is at fault. Not harming the bear is one thing but letting it run around wherever is highly irresponsible.
I wonder if not doing anything about would make the motel owner liable for the situation. Might be able to recoup his legal fees and get a new fancy gun (I say as I have a gun worth as much on my hip right now).
> Guy uses a handgun to successfully defeat a bear attack. > THR peanut gallery says "he spent too much on the gun." Amazing. Yes, a gun used to defend yourself might be seized as evidence. I'm guessing anyone who ever fought a bear without a handgun would gladly have ponied up $1,800 to buy their way out of it. This whole "don't carry an expensive gun because you might lose it if you use it" line of reasoning is insane.
"You have the right to bear arms. Not bear arms in defense against bears?" I knew that something like this was coming... Unbearable puns.
Was the man really under attack, or was the bear fleeing the dog and the man was in the way? I suspect that if the man had taken one or two steps to the side, the bear would have dashed past him. Legally, it might have been a good shoot, but ethically, I have doubts.
If a bear is charging toward me and I have a few seconds, if that to decide whether to shoot I'm not going to try to figure out the bear's intentions. I may be wrong but I'm guessing that the reasonable person standard applies here, meaning would a reasonable person believe they were at risk of great bodily harm or death. If a bear charging you doesn't meet that standard I'm not sure what does.
My carry gun is not fancy, nor modified in any way, but did cost me about $1K. (Colt new King Cobra.)
I think there is a big difference between carrying a gun that was expensive because its performance warrants the price, vs a gun that was expensive because the owner wanted exotic grips. However, that's his choice.
