Let’s play a game. It’s called You Be the Judge. It starts with a scenario:

A man who is wanted on a mental health warrant is confronted by police. He panics and takes his own dog hostage, holding a machete to the animal’s throat and threatening to kill it. Eventually, police subdue the man and confiscate his machete, but not before he bites an officer and they’re forced to use a stun gun on him.

The man later pleads guilty to resisting arrest with a weapon. He is sentenced to 11½ months in prison, followed by two years’ probation.

That’s the scenario. Got it? Good. Now let’s play.

Nearing the end of his prison term, the man has filed court papers seeking the return of his machete. A hearing is scheduled — by coincidence, it falls on the opening day of firearms deer hunting season. The prosecutor, an avid hunter asks the court for a delay.

“Attempting to kill a deer,” the prosecutor wrote in a court filing.

Was the choice of words an intentional provocation? Well, You Be the Judge. The defendant apparently was provoked to respond, writing: “Defendant is all too aware that it is entirely legal for residents of Pennsylvania to kill certain mammals purely for the ‘enjoyment’ of the process of killing, Defendant cannot but acknowledge the awkwardness of the Commonwealth requesting such a continuance based on this desire on the part of the attorney for the Commonwealth to kill a fellow mammal for fun.”

In contrast, the defendant describes himself as “a long time vegetarian and activist in support of nonhuman animal well-being (who) does not kill other beings for fun and considers the concept itself to be fundamentally repellent.”

This is an unexpectedly virtuous boast from a man who pleaded guilty to threatening to butcher his own dog with an oversize blade.

Again, You Be the Judge. Are his words irrelevant to the issue of his right to his property, or do you weigh them with the knowledge that he has been read his Miranda rights and they still apply — that anything he says may be held against him in court? Was the prosecutor thinking the same thing when he chose the phrase “attempting to kill a deer”?

It seems clear the defendant should be deprived possession of his machete and similar weapons at least until he completes his two years of probation.

If you were the judge, you might suggest that only after the probationary period was over could you decide whether the man had demonstrated the commitment to pacifism that he professes.

By the way, this is not a game. This is an actual case. See “Man asks court for his machete” in Thursday’s Butler Eagle.