Trophy Hunters TV

Laserlyte Hog Hunt

   June 24th, 2009

Last week I went on a hunt with my father-in-law, Jim, and Laserlyte. We went down to Paul Calhoun’s ranch down in Texas, close to Palestine. Got to meet up with some old friends (Dave, Aaron and Larry) and do some hunting down in the good ol’ Lone Star State. To be honest, I love most everything about Texas and if I had to pick my family up and move, I would head down there.

I have hunted with Laserlyte before and it’s always a good time. Last time we used Glock 10mm, this time we used a Bowtech crossbow. This episode will once again be on Keith Warren’s outdoor show, The High Road. When I find out when that will air, I’ll let you all know. Here are a few pictures from our hunt:

On the forums, we’ve been talking about a video of a 72-year old woman getting hit with a taser. I’m sure you’ve heard about it on the news and, if you haven’t seen the video yet, please watch it and then give me your opinion on what you just watched. You can read the story and find a link to the video HERE. There’s been quite a debate on the forums on whether the police officer was justified or just acting out of anger.

Here’s another funny thing I found on the forum, it actually looks like President Obama shot footage for this; but it could just be clever editing. The cartoon has a little bit of truth to it and it’s quite funny:

JibJab Presents: He’s Barack Obama

Got quite a few HIT Squad fighters fighting this weekend, so all the coaches will be busy. Talk to you all early next week.

23 Responses to “Laserlyte Hog Hunt”

Hillsboro Neighbor Down the Road Says:

First post- all right! I would have to side with the cop here. He did everything by the book and gave her every opportunity to calm down and get back in line. Its unfortunate that it went that far, but I dont think the cop did anything wrong. What I would like to hear peoples reaction on is all these court decisions coming down— First an NFL player gets only 30 days in jail for driving drunk and KILLING someone at 7:15am, then a Chicago cop gets no jail time for pummeling a defenseless woman bartender—and a child molester caught raping a 4 year old girl gets 3 months jail time plus 9 months time served?? While on the other hand the guy that stole Lance Armstrongs bike got 3 years in jail,, and the guy he sold it too who turned it back in once he knew it was Lances bike gets 90 days in jail for receiving/buying stolen property??? What is our world coming too??? The molester should be shot on the spot, the NFL player should be rotting in jail for a decade and the cop should be put in public population in prison so he could get his ass kicked.. just my two cents….. Where is Barack to save the day here…LOL!

NateR Says:

If that cop did everything by the book, then I think that book needs to be rewritten. There is absolutely no need to tase a 72-year-old woman for something as trivial as a speeding ticket. That cop was clearly on some kind of power trip.

Justin Says:

On the Tazer incident. I think he should have been able to subdue the woman without the use of a tazer, that said, he was justified in using force, whether he used the right kind of force is debatable, but I think he was justified in using force. Tazers seem to have an amount of stigma attached to them, but I doubt there would have been any less public outcry, or claims of excessive force from the woman had the officer physically taken her down and put her in handcuffs. I do think it’s important though that once a threat is made that it get carried through.

On the Jib-Jab video, that’s pretty funny. I thought it was pretty cool that they loosely set the song to “Johnny I hardly knew ya”.

John King Says:

My opinion on the 72 year old is that the lady had an additude but the cop reacted to her attitude instead of remaining calm and trying to calm her down. I understand they needed to get off the road but you can tell when he pushes her he is frustrated. He is trained to remain calm even when dealing with difficult people. I’m wondering if he would have kept a calm attitude maybe she would have relaxed as well. He went for the taser quickly versus working on talking about a simple speeding ticket. I don’t think however you can let someone just get away with something because of their age but I know he could have acted more professionally.
The Barack video is right on, it’s just a matter of time before the non-fighting crowd hear you posted this and get on here and start whining.
Glad you are getting to hunt and enjoy yourself. Good luck to all your Hit Squad Fighters. God Bless. John

J. R. Says:

It looks like your father-in-law is gaining some weight, Matt. Better get him in training. The taser treatment for the 72 year old woman was appropriate under the circumstances. Once the “lady” refused to sign the ticket, the officer probably had no choice but to place her under arrest. Doing that, with her resisting the way she was, might have resulted in more significant injuries to the “lady” than caused by the taser. She was going to jail, one way or the other, and the officer made a good decision.

steve from oz Says:

its funny you are discussing this subject we in australia just got tasers for our police and wouldnt you believe they have already killed somebody with it sucked in I say RESPECT THE POLICE

Jon Says:

It sounds to me liek the Police Officer went by the book… laws do not only apply to people of certain ages. There are also procedures as far as use of force, usually you stay one step above whatever force is coming at you. People have got to understand that a lot of the time police DO NOT know what or who they’re dealing with which is why some things look kinda extreme/cruel to citizens and some just can’t understand why things are done the way they are by law enforcement. For all that officer knew this woman could have had a small gun, knife, etc. I’ve only seen the video of it once and that was a few weeks ago whenever it came out. Now could the officer taken control of they older lady without use of the tazer, probably..but the tazer is the way it went down. I’ve never been tazed but I do know that once the few seconds are over the pain is over so it’s very quick, I have been pepper sprayed and it lasts longer (up to 5hrs) than the tazer. I know about 50 or so officers that have been tazed and most would take that over pepper spray any day. I was pepper sprayed with my consent I’m not a criminal or anything (for those wondering).

Josh Nickles Says:

That Daddy Barack video was hilarious. Only a matter of time before all of the Obama Mamma lovers are on here whining about it. As for the cop, I’m going to have to side with Nate on this one, definitely a power trip. Wasn’t there a video on this site of either Matt or Mark getting tasered a couple years back?? I think they need to re-post that, or if it’s lost, re-taser them so it can be filmed again. It was hilarious seeing one of the toughest guys I’ve ever seen dropped to the ground, and that was after he asked for it! Literallly, he said “go ahead, I’m ready” then ZAP!! Nate, you gotta find it and repost it up here to compare.

NateR Says:

It was Mark who got tased on camera. Matt got it too, but we didn’t get that one on tape.

JB Says:

The Police video…..the lady was not cooperating and clearly not obeying resonable and lawfull orders given by the Police Officer. The lady felt her age justified her actions, but she was not acting her age. The Officer in this case must consider his safety as well as grandma’s. The Officer was aggitated but kept his lid on just fine, there were cars flying by at a high rate of speed, I wouldn’t want to be dealing with a non compliant individual on the side of a busy highway regaurdless of age or sex of the suspect. Another thing to ponder, use of force! The application of the taser was certainly justified but consider the alternative, hands on. I strongly believe if the Officer had to escort Grandma to the pavement by way of physical force the potential for injuries would have been higher, all the while jepordizing Officer safety.

The stop was legal, the use of force was justified and I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts Grandma bites her tongue next time she gets audited for excersizing her constituntional right to be an A-whole.

All-in-all, could the stop have gone better? Sure, could have been worse too and untill you’ve paid your dues and recieved the amount of training the Officer has, your probably not in a good spot to critic the preformance displayed by the foreseen Officer .

PS Grandma, I’ll say this…at least he didn’t use the baton!

wjg Says:

I was L&E. By the use of model this was justified and I did feel like she had it coming. However, if you can see the officer is much larger, younger, stronger than this 72yr old women. I feel like he could have put cuffs on her without causing her any damage. She can continue to talk while cuffed, that’s no problem, she’s going to jail and you’re going home.

I was also trained to be werey of a subjects age when using the taser. Heart conditions such as the use of pace tickers could stop when using the taser. That was a few years ago so it is possible they may have been reversed.

“Sure, could have been worse too and untill you’ve paid your dues and received the amount of training the Officer has”
The jury does to have be subjected to those stipulations.

The officer did not remain calm, he elevated with this subject and it was obvious to the viewer. I’ve been yelled at before, and yelling back typically does not produce the result you’re seeking.

Chad Says:

At the end of hte day the Tazer was the best thing for her. Could he have physically subdued her and cuffed her without it? Yes he could. Would that have almost assuredly casue her harm if she resisted at all? Yes it would. On top of all of that depending on the laws of the state he was totally justified in using it. HIs use of it saved that woman from his using real physical force and actually causing her injury. Was he presenting a bad attitude ? Yes. Would it even be a question if he had been very calm and polite? Betting not. A prime example of how attitude can make the differnece between right and wrong when everything else is equal. He was right but a majority would say wrong just because of his attitude.

Stanley Bourdamis Says:

You seem to have an anti-Obama sentiment. My guess is you were a big mccain/bible spice supporter. I realize growing up, and spending your entire life in fly-over country has had an insulative impact that hasnt afforded you the opportunity to see the ‘big picture’ of the challenges people in this country face. I would invite you to spend some time away from the midwest cornfields, and travel to areas where less fortunate people havent enjoyed the security you have enjoyed throughout your life. Broaden your horizons and learn the concept of empathy, it will make you a better person. I guarantee it. Good luck to you.

NateR Says:

So, since Matt’s worldview doesn’t match up with yours, then it MUST be because Matt’s ignorant and uneducated? That’s a pretty closed-minded and elitist attitude you have there.

It’s also completely untrue, Matt’s traveled to many different parts on the world (England, Japan, Australia, etc.) and don’t forget that he’s spent several weeks working at an orphanage in Mexico. That’s not even taking into account all the different parts of the US that Matt has visited.

I’m not even going to talk about your ridiculous assertion that people are only conservative and/or Christian because they’ve been isolated or cut off from the rest of the world. That’s just so wrong it would be funny if so many people didn’t actually believe it.

So maybe you should take some time to learn a little bit more about people who disagree with you, before attempting to pigeonhole and criticize them. It will help you be a more open-minded and wise person. I guarantee it.

An Old Cop Says:

I started my 32 year police career when there were no portable radios, no Mace, no pepper spray, no stun guns or Tasers. Resistance had to be neutralized “hands on”. The cops only tools were a “black jack” in his hip pocket, a “nightstick” on his belt and his side arm. A cop is only allowed enough force to effect the arrest.
Having said that the tools used by todays police have been developed over the years so when resistance does arise he can effect the arrest quickly and effectively with minimal injury to the suspect and or himself. The Taser does this. It is effective and the pain to the suspect is short lived. No hands on, no wrestling, no hand to hand. no bloodshed or injury requiring a trp to the hospital before a trip to jail………….I viewed the the edited tape three or four times. I only have one thing to say to those in disagreement. Until you’ve walked a mile in a cops shoes don’t be so quick to judge. It wasn’t pretty but the Texas deputy gave the old broad every chance to cooperate and I’m sure he disliked what he had to do as much as we disliked seeing the tape. Sorry, he did what he had to do and she asked for everything she got.

steve from oz Says:

i think gsp may have his hands full with alves

Jas Says:


Regarding your comments to Stanley, I do agree that it’s not wise to judge an individual just because of their religious or political stances. My biggest issue with certain individuals who now find themselves on the minority end of the political spectrum is that they never spoke up during the “Bush” era, but now all of a sudden they think the word is about to end. For some reason they had no voice when the Bush administration committed some of the most heinous of crimes, often times overshadowing the Nixon crimes. I can say that I am a democrat who voted for and still supports President Obama. Despite the fact that I support the President, I have no problem disagreeing with him at times and calling things the way I see them. Where and when did anyone other then those who didn’t support Bush speak up against his actions?

NateR Says:

Well, I disagreed with Bush on several issues and I always made my opinion known. However, I would disagree with the notion that he was guilty of any “heinous crimes.” I think that’s just nonsense. He didn’t do anything that hadn’t already been done by every other wartime President. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for Southern soldiers during the Civil War. Roosevelt created Japanese internment camps during WW2 and even locked up Japanese-American veterans of World War 1. This idea that George W. Bush was a bad President is just a fabrication of the media.

However, I’m not really interested in defending Bush, since I believe that history will ultimately vindicate him and his actions. I’m speaking about Stanley’s remarks about Matt Hughes which I know to be untrue, because I know Matt personally. I don’t know George Bush personally.

Stanley created a straw man argument in an attempt to trivialize Matt and his beliefs. I was just simply pointing out how wrong Stanley’s opinion was.

Jas Says:


I understand that you were defending Matt against empty broad stroked remarks and there is nothing wrong with that. I commend you on being a select few that has the integrity to criticize those who are of the same political party. We both no that this is not a virtue that is shared on either side of the political realm. What I must take issue with is the notion that the Bush administration is not guilty of any type of crime. Here is just a few cases that that I can think of. Fabricating the facts in an effort to justify going to war with Iraq, is not a crime? Water Boarding an individual in an effort to extract vital Intel, is not a crime? The obvious retort would be ” Water Boarding is not torture.” So lets just say for argument sake that Water Boarding is not torture, and as Cheney said, it gave the US useful intel. Why was it done so much if it was so effective? Getting back to the topic of crimes. If a company like Halliburton who has ties with Cheney gets a big non-bid government contract, that’s not a crime? I won’t even get into the issue of Scooter Libby. You have a point that past Presidents have made poor choices, but to use this as justification for the actions of Bush is like someone justifying jumping off of a bridge because everyone else did it. You say that history will vindicate him and that the media is responsible for the distortion of his character, well we will have to disagree on those two points. The few points that I have made are facts with no distortion and they don’t lie. In closing tell me when have you ever seen a president with such a low approval rating get vindicated through history, did Nixon get vindicated?

NateR Says:

Well, Nixon had to resign from the Presidency before he was impeached over the Watergate scandal. So his problems ran a little deeper than simple approval ratings. In fact, if you recall, President Clinton actually was impeached, but that fact tends to get glossed over when people talk about the Clinton years.

Plus, I think the whole approval rating thing is more of a tool for media spin than a reflection of reality. As I learned in Sociology, polls can be manipulated and skewed to say whatever the poll writers want them to say. It all depends on WHAT questions are asked, HOW the questions are phrased, WHEN the poll is taken, and WHO is asked the questions.

And, no, I don’t believe that waterboarding is torture. I think enhanced interrogation is a better term for it. What’s the difference? Well, in my opinion, if the technique only causes discomfort and/or mental distress, but otherwise no permanent physical injuries/disabilities, then it should not be considered torture. Torture, to me, would entail drawing blood, removing body parts/organs, breaking bones, destroying eyesight, starvation, poisoning, burning, or anything that causes actual physical harm. So, I don’t believe our troops did anything illegal and the benefits of the information we gathered far outweighed the discomfort caused to the few terrorists that we waterboarded.

I also believe that if we get hit with another 9/11 level attack during the next 3.5 years, then public opinion of President Bush’s policies will shift dramatically. But we could go on forever about what MIGHT happen. Suffice it to say that history will prove one of us right and I hope we can leave it at that.

Jas Says:


I would like to end the “debate”, but you failed to answer a question that so many have failed to answer. If these techniques were so effective and yielding, then why were they employed roughly two hundred times on two individuals? Explain to me how from a logical stand point this makes sense. Being a Statistician I understand how polls can be altered in an effort to portray a given result. This is why you never go based on one single pole or even a partisan polling. A good pole takes a collective average with the extreme plus and minus excluded. It’s easy to say that approval ratings are a means for the media to distort and spin reality when one is on the downward slope of the ratings. This goes back to one of my original points, when certain individuals were in power they could do no wrong, but now that the tide has turned all hell is breaking loose. I’m tired of the media being used as a scapegoat for shortcomings or failures. I never hear criticism of the media and its distortion of the truth when it ignites a positive light on behalf of the republican party. Why is that? I do remember that Clinton was impeached, but I also remember that it was a partisan lead impeachment.

Denae Biscoe Says:

Hey Matt! I am a good friend of David Wiegand’s and I had the pleasure of meeting you at the Montalba feed store! You and your family are welcome in Texas anytime! Your an amazing person and fighter! May God continue to bless you and your family. xoxo, Denae

kevin fraisse Says:

Hey matt Ijust recently started watching ufc and I’m glad to be watching it while your fighting its awesome to see a christian in such a violent sport keep up the faith bro I really enjoyed your testimony God has strange ways of getting us to him well stay strong in your faith and good luck with your fights God bless bro. Kevin

Leave a Reply