In Boundary County, Idaho on May 8, 2011, Jeremy M. Hill spotted a mother grizzly bear and two cubs that had just wandered into his back yard—where his children were playing basketball.  Sizing up the situation, Mr. Hill decided that the safest thing to do was to shoot the mama bear, as he had no safe way to shoo her and the cubs back into the woods and mama grizzlies are well-known for aggressiveness and irritability when in company with their cubs, whom they are naturally inclined to protect against any threat, real or apparent.  So, having decided that the lives of his children had to come before that of the trespassing bear, Mr. Hill got his bolt-action rifle and shot the bear.  I find it hard to argue with his judgment, and I should hope any father would think the same.
 
In Jeremy Hill's part of the world, however, grizzly bears are a protected species, as the U.S. and Canadian governments are engaged in a project to make the area where idaho, Montana and British Columbia meet more congenial to the grizzlies.  Accordingly, Mr. Hill, in law-abiding fashion, called the Idaho Department of Fish and Game to report that he had just shot a bear and the circumstances.  Boy, I'll bet he wishes he hadn't.  For in choosing the safety of his children over the life of a bear and shooting the threat to their safety, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Idaho, Wendy J. Olson, has concluded that Hill committed a federal felony and has charged him with the illegal killing of a federally protected species.  (Worded that way, it sounds as though Hill just made grizzlies extinct, but that's fed-speak for you.)  By making the mistake of honoring the law by reporting the shooting, Jeremy Hill has exposed himself to a federal criminal prosecution that could cost him up to a year in prison and fines of up to $50,000to say nothing of his legal bills.[Not guilty plea entered in federal case of shot grizzly | Officials, many in community question prosecution of father, Becky Kramer,  The Spokesman-Review, August 24, 2011
 
Has Jeremy Hill really committed an offense by shooting a bear that might very well have attacked his children?  And, even if he has, is it an offense that a broke U.S. government should be prosecuting?  Why single out Mr. Hill for the heavy hand of federal law enforcement?  Wendy Olson, it may be worth remembering, was appointed to her post by Barack Hussein Obama and works for Eric Holder, the same dynamic duo who decided to drop all charges in the case of armed New Black Panthers intimidating Philadelphia voters.  What guidelines have her bosses given Wendy Olson and her fellow U.S. Attorneys about what and what not to prosecute?  Why throw the book at Jeremy Hill while letting the Panthers off the hook?
 
Most sentient people can probably figure out what the Black Panthers look like.  Here is what Jeremy Hill looks like.  Hmm...  So our bear-slayer is an average-looking white guy from rural Idaho.  Unlikely to be one of Pharaoh's supporters at the polls, and maybe even (horrors!) one of those militants up there in the Idaho mountains that the media make such a fuss over yet so rarely actually show us, probably because there really aren't very many of them.  But to the extent they do exist, such people must be firmly put in their place.  And Jeremy Hill's defense of his children has given one Obama functionary the opportunity to do just that, even if by proxy.
 
Sam Francis's term for this kind of selective law enforcement still fits a case like this best: anarcho-tyranny.  Real disturbers of the peace are left alone to molest people, especially if the disturbers are not white, because it is either just too much trouble to police them or they are a form of federally protected species themselves, while the book is thrown from time-to-time at generally law-abiding people who fall foul of some restriction they might not even have been aware of, to convince us rubes that the government is out there doing its job and keeping us all safe.  It's a con, but so far a pretty successful one.
 
The good news in the bad case of Jeremy Hill, however, is that Mr. Obama's attorney in Idaho may have overreached with this one.  Local people, including their political representatives—who are actually being representative for a change—appear to be overwhelmingly opposed to this abuse of power and waste of their tax dollars.  Significantly, Boundary County Prosecutor Jack Douglas has written a public letter saying he does not believe Mr. Hill should be charged with anything.
 
Last week Jeremy Hill pleaded not guilty to illegally killing a federally protected species; jury trial is set for October 4th in Coeur d'Alene. 
 
The case of U.S. v. Jeremy Hill is one to watch, and to publicize.