Under state law, only DEEP is legally charged with managing bears that are “somehow considered a problem,” she said. Once doing so he killed her, justifying his action by claiming fear.”

But justifiable exceptions require compelling circumstances which, in my opinion, these incident reports just don’t offer,” she added.Īs the attorney explained, the law’s definition of “taking” a bear includes the word “killing,” and “also identifies “pursuing bear as a separate stand-alone offense.”Īs a result, she said, “when the homeowner left the safety of his house armed instead of calling DEEP, he chose to pursue and confront the bear. “That’s not to say common sense exceptions shouldn’t or wouldn’t be made when the facts call for it. Per Throckmorton’s interpretation, state laws make it illegal to “take” a bear in Connecticut, with no statutory exception for protecting yourself, livestock, or poultry against a bear. “I’m mystified, even after talking to the state’s attorney, by the state’s failure to file charges,” she wrote in an email. Katherine Throckmorton, a Connecticut attorney who lends her time in support of animal welfare, including those championed by the Connecticut Coalition to Protect Bears, followed the Newtown incident closely and chimed in on the legal implications of the investigation and the State Attorney’s office decision not to bring charges against Clarke. With the long-awaited investigation finalized, advocates are now slamming its findings, citing the details in the report and even in Clarke’s own account of the incident that they say raise questions over the legality of the shooting.

“After a complete review of all of the evidence provided by DEEP including police reports, body cams, maps and diagrams, social media, and witness interviews, the Danbury State’s Attorney’s Office determined that a crime had not been committed,” a spokesperson for the State’s Attorney said Friday. Obtained by Hearst Media Connecticut through a public records request, the cache of documents showing the work behind DEEP’s inquiry into the bear shooting includes photo evidence, data on the history of the bear’s interactions with humans, a necropsy and a summary of the follow-up interview with Clarke less than a month after the incident. “The investigation determined that the homeowner had numerous encounters with the same bear over multiple days that caused him to fear for the safety of his family, for himself, and for his livestock,” DEEP said in a press release.Īttempts to reach Clarke on Friday were unsuccessful. On July 8, the agency announced the State’s Attorney’s office would not bring charges against Clarke for the killing of the bear, finding “insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against. Clarke then had his wife call DEEP.”ĭEEP officials would eventually capture and relocate the cubs to a rehabilitation center in New Hampshire as authorities investigated the circumstances of the killing and whether or not it was justified.

“He stated he felt horrible,” according to the narrative and, “he could not allow himself to watch the bear suffer,” so he “walked closer to the bear and fired 7 or 8 more rounds until it died.

The witness environmental puzzles