Board Thread:Speculation House/@comment-6500074-20130829103240/@comment-82.12.156.248-20140213162216

They are officially sanctioned. What I meant was that they don't get funding from the government nor do they need the express permission of the government during their work. As long as they do not endanger the citizens and the neccessary money to pay for damage I don't believe they will be arrested or reprimanded for what damage they do cause whilst pursuing their line of work.

For example: Whereas the military need clearance from command before opening fire on non-hostile targets, I do not believe this applies to hunters provided they have strong evidence that said target is a threat to peace. As for an example of not having funding: If the Sergeant John Doe commandeered civilian transport he would have an expectation to return it. If they cannot then the military itself would reimburse the owner. In the case of the hunters, I believe they would allowed to commandeer civilian transports BUT any damage that actually became of the commandeering would need to be paid for by the huntsman or huntress that commandeered the vehicles.

Of course that is just my belief on how hunters differ from the police or the military in terms of significant differences as far as protocol goes. If there is no difference in protocol then hunters are simply highly trained soldiers which I believe is a bit too simplistic.