Idaho Rancher Shooting

[Bestoutwest]

The officers will not be prosecuted.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/stat ... 73452.html

 

[greybeard]

I don't think that surprises anyone.

 

[Alan]

Thanks for the update, I've been searching for one from time to time. No surprises, no harm no foul attitude again. I chuckled at the line which stated they hope to build trust between the community and sheriff dept again. One sheriff fired 16 times one four times and Yantis twice once when the rifle went off when the sheriff grabbed his rifle. Sad deal all around, but you could see the decision coming from day one, cops protect cops, that includes the DA.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

I image an blood alcohol level above 1.0 while possessing a firearm and going out to confront the police isn't going to play well in front of a jury. Regardless of any other facts.

Be interesting what is discovered in the civil suit regarding both parties.

 

[farmguy]

I hate to be the devil's advocate but if I am confronted by a man who has been drinking, carrying a rifle and swearing at me I too may be somewhat apprehensive. None of us were there but this I gathered from reading what is published. The alcohol consumption was probably evident from the odor if not the behavior. Also as a Viet Nam vet I can say that decisions must be made in the fraction of a second and believe me your first reaction is for your own safety. In retrospect the killing was most likely not warranted but the officers had to make a decision.

 

[greybeard]

In retrospect the killing was most likely not warranted but the officers had to make a decision.

No doubt. People make poor decisions all the time--and most of us pay a high personal price for them.

 

[Alan]

I wasn't going to push this issue but a couple of you have things mixed up. The senerio, So you're sitting around having a couple of beers at home after the day is done, not driving, with your wife, friends and family, you get news you have an animal hit by car on the hwy. someone sober drives you to the sight to find out the cops have unloaded a couple of clips in the animal and it's nothing more then irritated. You send your nephew to get your rifle so you can put the animal down, as you have done many times before. But the cops, who couldn't kill a wounded bull, manages to put multiple rounds in you and while your laying there dying your wife of many years gets slammed to the ground and has a heart attack. Give me a break, alcohol had nothing to do with it, one cop fired 16 times and nothing but a wounded bull a dead rancher and a wife being life flighted.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

I wasn't going to push this issue but a couple of you have things mixed up. The senerio, So you're sitting around having a couple of beers at home after the day is done, not driving, with your wife, friends and family, you get news you have an animal hit by car on the hwy. someone sober drives you to the sight to find out the cops have unloaded a couple of clips in the animal and it's nothing more then irritated. You send your nephew to get your rifle so you can put the animal down, as you have done many times before. But the cops, who couldn't kill a wounded bull, manages to put multiple rounds in you and while your laying there dying your wife of many years gets slammed to the ground and has a heart attack. Give me a break, alcohol had nothing to do with it, one cop fired 16 times and nothing but a wounded bull a dead rancher and a wife being life flighted.

I think maybe you've misunderstood what I was saying and aren't considering how litigation works.

My first question after you finish your break, is this:

If a couple of beers has ZERO effect on a person, their processing of information from their environment/senses, effect on their senses, or on their ability to react to the information that they have processed, why didn't he drive himself to the site of the accident?

 

[Alan]

I wasn't going to push this issue but a couple of you have things mixed up. The senerio, So you're sitting around having a couple of beers at home after the day is done, not driving, with your wife, friends and family, you get news you have an animal hit by car on the hwy. someone sober drives you to the sight to find out the cops have unloaded a couple of clips in the animal and it's nothing more then irritated. You send your nephew to get your rifle so you can put the animal down, as you have done many times before. But the cops, who couldn't kill a wounded bull, manages to put multiple rounds in you and while your laying there dying your wife of many years gets slammed to the ground and has a heart attack. Give me a break, alcohol had nothing to do with it, one cop fired 16 times and nothing but a wounded bull a dead rancher and a wife being life flighted.

I think maybe you've misunderstood what I was saying and aren't considering how litigation works.

My first question after you finish your break, is this:

If a couple of beers has ZERO effect on a person, their processing of information from their environment/senses, effect on their senses, or on their ability to react to the information that they have processed, why didn't he drive himself to the site of the accident?

What does it matter why he didn't drive himself? He had a few of drinks with friends in his house, had a sober person drive him to an accident site he had a big part in, his bull. As stated in the link he broke no laws, but he did see the cluster f**k the cops made and wanted to put HIS bull down, which the trained law enforcement officers couldn't get done. A cop grabbed his rifle while he was aiming at the bull it went off and the trained law enforcement officers slaughtered him.

 

[Son of Butch]

I think maybe you've misunderstood what I was saying and aren't considering how litigation works.

My first question after you finish your break, is this:

If a couple of beers has ZERO effect on a person, their processing of information from their environment/senses, effect on their senses, or on their ability to react to the information that they have processed,

why didn't he drive himself to the site of the accident?

1. I reject your premise that beer has ZERO effect... it slows reaction time.
However:
1.5 was completely legal in my lifetime and now some states are pushing for over 0.75 as illegal to drive.
1.5 slows reaction times... but it doesn't cause an otherwise rational person to become irrational.

2. Choosing not to drive himself shows he was capable of using rational judgment and did so.

Had he said, "Here hold my beer and watch this."
Now that would be evidence he was intoxicated past the point of rational judgment.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

I think maybe you've misunderstood what I was saying and aren't considering how litigation works.

My first question after you finish your break, is this:

If a couple of beers has ZERO effect on a person, their processing of information from their environment/senses, effect on their senses, or on their ability to react to the information that they have processed,

why didn't he drive himself to the site of the accident?

1. I reject your premise that beer has ZERO effect... it slows reaction time.
However:
1.5 was completely legal in my lifetime and now some states are pushing for over 0.75 as illegal to drive.
1.5 slows reaction times... but it doesn't cause an otherwise rational person to become irrational.

2. Choosing not to drive himself shows he was capable of using rational judgment and did so.

Had he said, "Here hold my beer and watch this."
Now that would be evidence he was intoxicated past the point of rational judgment.

I didn't have a premise that it has ZERO effect.

What do you think is entailed in slow reaction time? Maybe the nervous system?

In this slow reaction time, is it the sensory receptors that alcohol has it's effect on? The efferent neurons? The process of information in the central nervous system neurons? The afferent neurons? Or the muscle tissue responsible for action?

IF, there is any data, and there is, that alcohol impacts the processing of information or impairs decision making, then you lost your case Butch. And you lost your case.

The state and every other state has recognized that he was legally drunk. That is the bar that has been set, rather you agree or not.

So this man that cannot legally navigate a vehicle down a residential area, or matter of fact legally sit in the front seat with the engine off and the keys simply in the ignition. Yet you think there won't be a single individual on a normal 12 person jury think it is a bad decision for this LEGALLY IMPAIRED man to yield a high powered rifle among all the people that have gathered at the public crash site? That is not a rational decision. If the young man that brought the gun continued on to use the gun to put the animal out of it's misery, THAT would have been a rational decision.

His being drunk and yielding a firearm among the public with intent to discharge it, rather he acted rationally in other actions or not, made prosecution of the police practically impossible.

I've drank my share of beer. I don't and I won't mix that with firearms. Bad decision, if it is not illegal to discharge a firearm while legally impaired, it should be.

I've stated nothing about the cops actions. I'd like more information about the entire situation. The cops may still be found negligent in the civil case.

 

[Alan]

I've stated nothing about the cops actions. I'd like more information about the entire situation. The cops may still be found negligent in the civil case.

What more info do you need? Two trained cops couldn't put down an injured bull. One cop fired his .223 16 times. The rancher, Yantis, fired his weapon twice, once on a misfire caused by a cop grabbing his rifle while it was aiming at his bull, who knows what caused the other round to go off..... My guess is him trying to defend himself while being shot 12 times. Him being drunk???? He did nothing illegal according to the DA. I think you'r paddling upstream on this.

 

[True Grit Farms]

None of it makes any sense. Starting with a bull being in the road? And the cops not being able to put the down? Then the rancher shows up with no gun, who goes anywhere without a gun? Then the nephew brings back a .204 Ruger which is a varmint round to put a bull down? Then a cop grabs the guy and his rife goes off, really? Innocent bystanders in the line of fire for the rancher, but not the cops? Who knows what was said between the rancher and cops? Alcohol can and will make you say things that you shouldn't. Why did the cops shoot him so many times, to make sure he dies? And why didn't either one of the cops have a body camera that was working? And no pictures or video from the bystanders? Something smells fishy to me. I've dealt with my share of cops and they will lie to your face and under oath.

 

[Alan]

None of it makes any sense. Starting with a bull being in the road? And the cops not being able to put the down? Then the rancher shows up with no gun, who goes anywhere without a gun? Then the nephew brings back a .204 Ruger which is a varmint round to put a bull down? Then a cop grabs the guy and his rife goes off, really? Innocent bystanders in the line of fire for the rancher, but not the cops? Who knows what was said between the rancher and cops? Alcohol can and will make you say things that you shouldn't. Why did the cops shoot him so many times, to make sure he dies? And why didn't either one of the cops have a body camera that was working? And no pictures or video from the bystanders? Something smells fishy to me. I've dealt with my share of cops and they will lie to your face and under oath.

Just to try to answer some of your questions Highgrit, the bull was on the road because it's open range, no fences, common in eastern Oregon and Idaho. It is well signed and the drivers responsibility to ad void the livestock and completely legal. Rancher had no gun because he knew , per phone call, law enforcement was on the scene and putting the bull down :roll: . Once the rancher got in scene and saw his bullet ridden bull suffering he sent his nephew for the rifle. As far as .204 ruger? I do know my butcher puts my steers down with a .22 hornet, one shot between the eyes and they drop like a rock. Obviously, I'm not happy with the outcome.

 

[JMJ Farms]

None of it makes any sense. Starting with a bull being in the road? And the cops not being able to put the down? Then the rancher shows up with no gun, who goes anywhere without a gun? Then the nephew brings back a .204 Ruger which is a varmint round to put a bull down? Then a cop grabs the guy and his rife goes off, really? Innocent bystanders in the line of fire for the rancher, but not the cops? Who knows what was said between the rancher and cops? Alcohol can and will make you say things that you shouldn't. Why did the cops shoot him so many times, to make sure he dies? And why didn't either one of the cops have a body camera that was working? And no pictures or video from the bystanders? Something smells fishy to me. I've dealt with my share of cops and they will lie to your face and under oath.

There are good ones of both out there don't get me wrong........ But you can be a cop or a preacher when you've exhausted all other gainful employment options.

 

[inyati13]

None of it makes any sense. Starting with a bull being in the road? And the cops not being able to put the down? Then the rancher shows up with no gun, who goes anywhere without a gun? Then the nephew brings back a .204 Ruger which is a varmint round to put a bull down? Then a cop grabs the guy and his rife goes off, really? Innocent bystanders in the line of fire for the rancher, but not the cops? Who knows what was said between the rancher and cops? Alcohol can and will make you say things that you shouldn't. Why did the cops shoot him so many times, to make sure he dies? And why didn't either one of the cops have a body camera that was working? And no pictures or video from the bystanders? Something smells fishy to me. I've dealt with my share of cops and they will lie to your face and under oath.

There are good ones of both out there don't get me wrong........ But you can be a cop or a preacher when you've exhausted all other gainful employment options.

That is encouraging, I don't want to be a cop but I think preachin would be fun.

 

[True Grit Farms]

I'm with you on the outcome Alan, I just try and look at both sides. There's no way that the rancher should be dead. And the cops used excessive force for sure and should be charged with that.
In 1978 in Nichols GA you got to carry a gun, drive a police issued LTD and write tickets without any formal training. But you only wrote tickets to folks that lived outside the county.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

I've stated nothing about the cops actions. I'd like more information about the entire situation. The cops may still be found negligent in the civil case.

He did nothing illegal according to the DA.

And according to him, apparently neither did the two guys that were able to dispatch him but not the bull.

And information? Since you have all the information, can you draw a diagram where all the witnesses were standing when the victim was shot, the distances they were away in the dark, and describe in detail their statements of events along with the coroners examination, officer's blood analysis and forensic evidence of bullet travel. That's were I'd start.

They may be guilty as hell of not diffusing the situation and firing on the man once the gun was discharged. They may be the most Barny Fife wanna be badge wearing fools ever sworn in. But were they deputized with the full force of the law in that county?

Did they ask him to put the gun down?

Did he comply?

Whose finger was on the trigger and where was the gun pointed?

 

[Alan]

CF, most of your questions can be answered if you read the first thread on the shooting, the links in the thread. Both statements from the wife, while in the hospital and the nephew. It's pretty clear who was were and were the rancher was pointing the rifle when the cop grabbed it. I won't answer whose finger was on the trigger, I'll let you piece that together.

 

[gizmom]

If you go through the link Alan provided you will find a link to all the reports, interviews etc. of th investigation. This is such a sad situation. This man should not be dead, where is the outrage for what happened. You sure didn't see anything on national news. This man was shot 16 times.....16, after being contacted and requested to come and put the bull down. The report said he was upset....well duh would you be if someone had shot your bull five times and still not managed to put it out of its misery. This just stinks of cover up, yet reading the eye witness reports I can see where it would be hard to prosecute. Maybe a Ranchers Lives Matters Movement would of been able to get charges filed. I sure hope the civil suit goes better for the family.

Gizmom