PJ Media has been exposing the radical hiring policies of attorneys in the powerful Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department. So far the ongoing series has focused on the backgrounds of the ideological and partisan attorneys hired since Eric Holder became Attorney General. For a moment, consider the damage that alumni of this unmoored government agency can do after they leave.
Today, the predicament of Jeremy M. Hill of Idaho has gained a great deal of attention. Hill’s children, ages 10 months to 14 years, were home when three grizzly bears came onto the property. Hill shot one of the bears in self defense, according to his attorney and his father.
Eric Holder’s Justice Department has filed criminal charges against Hill for killing the bear, a federally protected species of animal. He faces a year in prison and a $50,000 fine. The United States Attorney in Idaho, Wendy J. Olson, is an alumni of the very same DOJ Civil Rights Division PJM has been profiling. Had Olson been hired recently, no doubt her prior work for an that advocates strongly for the so-called Fairness Doctrine and other government controls over speech would have been featured at PJM. Former high ranking DOJ officials tell me there is no chance Olson didn’t sign off personally on the charges against Hill. 
The outrage in Idaho is off the charts. The courtroom overflowed with supporters. Members of the Idaho Boundary County Commission said in a statement Hill had “not only the right, but the obligation to protect his children and his family.” Hill could have just buried the bear, but instead called law enforcement to report the matter.
On one hand, maybe Hill was just out for bear and was looking for a thrill kill. More likely, this is a case of common sense and justice being tossed aside in the interest of an animal. What can be done? The impeachment clause (Art. 2, Section 4) applies to U.S. Attorney Olson but only for high crimes and misdemeanors. President Obama or Eric Holder could order Olson back to Earth, and dismiss the charges.
Or, more likely in this ideological administration (including Enviro-animal activism), the voters will have to punish the President. Democrats think Montana is up for grabs next November. Good luck. Montana, like Idaho, has problems with grizzlies destroying livestock and menacing human life. Maybe in 2012, the GOP nominee can campaign across Montana with Jeremy Hill, presuming Wendy Olson hasn’t put him in a federal prison for a year.
This is one scary prosecutor. She has completely lost all sense of rationality if she is exercising her discretion to prosecute the case. This really is a gross abuse of power (not to mention a colossal waste of federal resources).
Are you ****ing kidding me? What bear shiite! holder, wendy and obama should be dropped in the middle of bear country and left to fend for themselves!
yeah JP,
stuff their pockets with sweet treats and throw a pot of bacon on the fire. They can use their legalese to defend themselves.
If the facts cited here are true, all I can say is that O, Holder, & Co. are going make us just like all those other European socialist states where the individual cannot legally defend himself. (You know how those great Leftist thinkers proclaim that in a ‘civilized’ state, the state has a monopoly on force; I’m sure the Germans were oh, so thrilled with that when the Nazis confiscated their firearms.) Think of the UK now, where, if you injure the perp while defending yourself, you are held accountable, not the perp.
Let’s hope the judge has some sense, and throws this out.
At what point do these despotic bureaucrats think that we the people will begin tarring and feathering them? They have to know it’s coming.
A grizzly is scary but not as scary as
WendellWendy Olson!5 words: 1)Jury 2)Nullification, 3)%&#* 4)You, 5)^(%#!
This dike is completely cracked and my outrage is overflowing.
So you caught that unreasonable, pedantic, powermad, angry loser attitude, too? Or do you have actual info?
Not that it much matters. If we can fix that, let’s not.
So far the media in Montana have not covered this very much, because I had to read PJM in order to find this story. So I went back to the Billings Gazette and found it buried at the bottom of the home page- way, way down. I think because it happened in Idaho- oddly enugh we don’t get a lot of news out of there reported here.
Sadly, in the parts of the state where the grizzlies live there are more than a few Gaiaists who probably think the bears deserved a nice pork sandwich as reparations for having their habitat taken away, and probably think six kids are about a half- dozen too many, anyway. But Charlie is right in that most Montanans would be up in arms ( well, more arms than usual) because we have the highest number of hunters per capita and hunters are always worried about running into bears. The person in the article who said that this would lead to people not reporting kills done in self- defense is exactly right.
The irony is that Mr. Hill probably saved the lives of the other bears by teaching them a lesson. Otherwise all three of them would have become nuisance bears and would have been trapped or shot on purpose. But only after someone was hurt or killed.
Charlie? Who is Charlie?!
Fox News is about to do a segment on this story, 7:30 a.m. EDT.
Ever since Tony Martin got jailed in the UK for shooting a burglar breaking in the umpteenth time, there seems not to have been such a shooting in the UK again, probably because the new sane method is now to shot, shut up and shovel, and save police time whilst you’re at it.
How to destroy the bedrock of civil society, in one easy lawsuit.
Of course this isn’t a “lawsuit.” This is a criminal charge – far more serious.
The way I see it, besides the fact that this guy has a right to protect his own, those two bears that got away learned a valuable lesson. Stay away from pigs and humans or you will die. If he had let them take one of his pigs, where do you think they would go next time they get hungry? Nearest pig farm. By shooting one, he saved two.
This is what happens when we let people in the East decide what’s best for our resources in the West (I’m including California in the East part).
I guess the castle doctrine only applies to people. NRA we need you.
In England the people have lost the right to self-defense. If you defend yourself “unreasonably” – meaning if you do anything more than use harsh language (and even then, that better not contain any “hate” language) you’ll be brought up on charges.
This is on the same spectrum. It’s the camel’s nose under the tent, and represents the attempt of the state to take sovereignty away from the individual. Bad stuff and must be resisted.
Folks out west ought to simply go on a massive hunting spree, kill all the bears, have a BBQ and end any chance of this happening again (the central government attacking the people who employ them). Free country? Not so much…
Shoot, shovel, shut up.
Here endeth the lesson.
Who is to speak for the bears? After all there are many more people than bears and losing a few of the later would not effect the population as much as losing one of the former-especially since grizzlies are endangered. And isn’t it spec- ism to place humans on a higher plane than bears? It is time for us sophisticated types to become the decision makers for all. That is the essence of the progressive movement. We have a progressive president so why shouldn’t those he appoints share his progressive views including contempt for ordinary folks.