9th Circuit Unintentionally Explains How Black People Are No Better Than Grizzly Bears

It is difficult to explain to certain people why black people should not be shot to death by the police. For a certain segment of our country, there is always a reason, there is always a justification, for shooting black people. It can be hard to get people to see how murderous the American police are authorized to be towards African-Americans.

Maybe it’s easier to understand if we look at bears? Humans can have difficulty seeing other humans as humans, but everybody knows how to anthropomorphize bears, right?

Grizzly bears are an endangered species, so technically you’re not allowed to kill them. But today the Ninth Circuit ruled you can totally kill grizzly bears if they are threatening you, even if that threat exists entirely in your own mind?

Sound familiar?

Here are the facts in U.S. v. Wallen:

Wallen lives in Ferndale, Montana, a place aptly described as “bear country.” In the spring of 2014, local residents reported the presence of three grizzly bear cubs to Tim Manley, a grizzly bear management specialist with Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP). These bears were “food conditioned” and “habituated,” meaning they wanted unnatural foods like chicken feed and were not afraid of approaching humans to get them. Residents observed the bears frolicking in backyards, eating grass and “just being bears.” Others reported the bears for ransacking chicken coops. None reported aggressive behavior toward humans.

On the morning of May 27, 2014, Wallen discovered a number of dead chickens in his yard. The culprits had rammed through the fence to his chicken coop and killed two-thirds of his chickens. One perpetrator left behind a paw print that Wallen concluded belonged to a bear.

Neither Wallen nor his wife, Alison, called Manley or any other authority after discovering the dead chickens and the paw print. Instead, they went to work and returned home that afternoon.

Later that evening, Wallen and Alison watched their two boys (ages 8 and 11), their 16-year-old daughter (A.B.) and A.B.’s boyfriend play outside. The three bears then returned, heading for the chicken coop. The chickens scattered and the bears gave chase, running within 100 feet of where Wallen’s daughter stood. A.B. screamed and ran into the house through a glass back door as Wallen got in his truck and chased the bears away. Meanwhile, Alison called
Manley’s cell phone and left a message telling him the grizzlies had come for their chickens twice and that her husband was trying to chase them away with the truck. She asked for advice as to what she and her husband could do about the bears…

The bears returned for a second time 10 to 15 minutes later. Again, the chickens ran, the bears gave chase and Wallen frightened them away with his truck.

After Wallen chased the bears, they entered the property of the Wallens’ neighbor, Tom Clark. Clark videotaped them milling about and crossing a nearby highway. At no point did the bears behave aggressively toward him. He stopped recording at 9:14 p.m. Shortly thereafter, he heard shots fired, followed by a roar from the direction of Wallen’s property. As later became clear, the sounds Clark heard were Wallen shooting and killing the three grizzlies.

TL;DR version: Unarmed bear cubs shot to death by man in no immediate danger of being attacked by bears.

It’s telling, to me, that the bears were shot at night. The anti-grizzly mafia will make a lot of noise about the children, oh the children that were being menaced by the bears. But you’ll note that when the kids were around, the Revenant here didn’t grab his gun. He grabbed his truck. That means that the bears were far enough away from his own kids that he felt that he could comfortably drive them off as opposed to killing them off. It was only later, at night, when big buck had enough of the bears.

It seems to me like this would be a clear violation of the Endangered Species Act, but the Ninth Circuit thought differently:

We hold the “good faith belief” defense for a prosecution under 16 U.S.C. § 1540 is governed by a subjective, rather than an objective, standard, and is satisfied when a defendant actually, even if unreasonably, believes his actions are necessary to protect himself or others from perceived danger from a grizzly bear.

So, essentially, you can shoot grizzly bears for any reason, or no reason at all, as long as you “fear” the grizzly bear, even if that fear is unfounded.

I ask again: WHO DOES THAT SOUND LIKE?

We allow the police to shoot black people, if they believe shooting black people is necessary to protect themselves or others, EVEN IF THAT FEAR IS UNREASONABLE. Oh, the standard is supposed to be “reasonable” fear, but we’ve thrown that out. There is no expectation that cops behave reasonably, entirely cowardly and irrational fear will also be rubberstamped by judges and juries.

A black person in America can expect no better treatment from the police than a grizzly bear in Montana can expect from a chicken farmer.

I don’t sympathize with the bears, I freaking empathize with them. I COULD BE THAT BEAR. And I’m in fact more likely to be treated like the bear than like a person.

---

Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law and the Legal Editor for More Perfect. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at [email protected]. He will resist.