Anyone Recognize These Guys?

[Fl0und3rz]

Pretty sure we have the last group of guys identified, not the car yet though, which should be the easy one since you can see the plate clear as day.

 Problem with vehicles is the owner in this state is not responsible for the vehicle, so you have to prove who is driving.

That's interesting because when you get a traffic light ticket in the mail they say the opposite. The judge literally told everyone who used that excuse that unless the vehicle was stolen (and on record) then it is the owner's responsibility and the proof lays on the owner to declare who was driving. I guess because a traffic offense is different than criminal but still you'd think they would have some similarities when it comes to ownership.. too bad.

Ummm no.  That may have happened to you and I'm sorry it did but the burden is on the issuing authority to establish who was driving not on the owner to prove they weren't, it's a innocent until proven guilty thing and all they have is a picture of your car (provided a face can't be identified via closer examination of the photograph). 

You are not legally obligated to disclose who was driving, they ask you to on the back of the affidavit but you don't have to disclose anything if you choose not to.  You are not required  to establish someone else's guilt in order to establish your own innocence. 

There is an RCW that shows you are wrong WRT camera tickets.  You must rebut the presumption to avoid the road tax.  It's a sham.

http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/does-the-law-require-the-registered-owner-to-name--497750.html

[skeeter 20i]

You don't have to give a name you just show how it wasn't you.  i.e. here's receipts showing I was in another state.  Rebute custody.  Sorry shouldn't have thread jacked.   

[Fl0und3rz]

That may not be enough.

(2) This presumption may be overcome only if the registered owner states, under oath, in a written statement to the court or in testimony before the court that the vehicle involved was, at the time, stolen or in the care, custody, or control of some person other than the registered owner.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.63.075

[floatinghat]

I had a guy tell me the other day that "they wouldn't have been trespassing if you would have said yes when we asked."

REALLY?!

 

That's funny

[DBLDWN]

Is this your land phool, or are you posting for someone else?

[Landowner]

Wow, those guys and the rig going through the orchard-------that kind of activity would not happen or be tolerated where I live.   

Not sure what has been done to stop that activity in the photos----looks like North Central WA or Yakima country? Fence the entries, put up some no trespassing signs, patrol it, do something other than just put a camera up.  Word has to be out that the ground in the photos is easy pickings. 

Hopefully you identify the clowns in the pics and get the prosecutor to take action.  Call WDFW enforcement or the sheriff.  They will run the license and contact the owner of the rig.  Even if it can't be shown absent an admission who was driving it, they likely won't be back after a call from law enforcement.  We've busted guys with nothing more than a license plate number.

[cbond3318]

I had a guy tell me the other day that "they wouldn't have been trespassing if you would have said yes when we asked."

REALLY?!

 

That's funny

seems reasonable.

[Jonathan_S]

I had a guy tell me the other day that "they wouldn't have been trespassing if you would have said yes when we asked."

REALLY?!

 

That's funny

The weird thing is that they're right  not ethically, morally, or legally but they're technically right 

[Rainier10]

I had a guy tell me the other day that "they wouldn't have been trespassing if you would have said yes when we asked."

REALLY?!

 

That's funny

The weird thing is that they're right  not ethically, morally, or legally but they're technically right 

Exactly. At that point I didn't know what to say, end of conversation. Nothing you can say to people with mentality.

[WAcoueshunter]

Ridiculous, sorry to see that Phool.  The guy with the arrow nocked is priceless.  Who does that?

Here's the relevant law.

RCW 77.15.435


Unlawful hunting on or retrieving hunted wildlife from the property of another—Defense—Penalty—Forfeiture and disposition of wildlife.



*** CHANGE IN 2015 *** (SEE 1627.SL) ***


(1) A person is guilty of unlawfully hunting on, or retrieving hunted wildlife from, the property of another if the person knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or on the premises of another for the purpose of hunting for wildlife or retrieving hunted wildlife.

(2) In any prosecution under this section, it is a defense that:

(a) The premises were at the time open to members of the public for the purpose of hunting, and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining on the premises;

(b) The actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him or her to enter or remain on the premises for the purpose of hunting or retrieving hunted wildlife;

(c) The actor reasonably believed that the premises were not privately owned; or

(d) The actor, after making all reasonable attempts to contact the owner of the premises, retrieved the hunted wildlife for the sole purpose of avoiding a violation of the prohibition on the waste of fish and wildlife as provided in RCW 77.15.170. The defense in this subsection only applies to the retrieval of hunted wildlife and not to the actual act of hunting itself.

(3) Unlawfully hunting on or retrieving hunted wildlife from the property of another is a misdemeanor.

(4) If a person unlawfully hunts and kills wildlife, or retrieves hunted wildlife that he or she has killed, on the property of another, then, upon conviction of unlawfully hunting on, or retrieving hunted wildlife from, the property of another, the department shall revoke all hunting licenses and tags and order a suspension of the person's hunting privileges for two years.

(5) Any wildlife that is unlawfully hunted on or retrieved from the property of another must be seized by fish and wildlife officers. Forfeiture and disposition of the wildlife is pursuant to RCW 77.15.100. [2012 c 176 § 11.
[2012 c 176 § 11.]

[grade-creek-rd]

Phool...does this happen to be the backside of the Chelan Butte? The WDFW road goes right through the orchard and isn't posted (doesn't have to be...just saying) and maybe these morons think that the edge of the orchard is the Wildlife Area boundary...though the 6 ft high deer fence would be a clue...if its the butte, maybe contact the Wenatchee office and ask them to put up signs marking the access route. If I hadn't grown up there I could see how someone could be confused...but that's no defense to what their doing.

If it is, and the WDFW is willing to provide the signs, I would be happy to put them up next time I'm over there.

Grade

[724wd]

The guy with the arrow nocked is priceless.  Who does that?

bowhunters?   

[UBA]

Not on the butte. Couple legal bucks hang out next to the highway and now the grower has to deal with people chasing them around all year. No fun. Should have some bird hunters on there pretty soon. They are always running around behind there

[Colville]

smossy...

Two separate issues re cars.  If the car collides with something and does damage, the owner of the car will have their insurance is in play immediately.  Loan someone your car, loan them your insurance.  This is a civil matter.

Criminal acts of the driver on the other hand, speeding, trespass etc those are only chargeable to the driver regardless of the ownership.  The issue here is crime, not damages to property.  If I use my buddies car and drive drunk, he is charged with nothing.  If I do that and kill a guy in an accident, his insurance is in play and he may be sued and lose.

[huntnphool]

smossy...

Two separate issues re cars.  If the car collides with something and does damage, the owner of the car will have their insurance is in play immediately.  Loan someone your car, loan them your insurance.  This is a civil matter.

Criminal acts of the driver on the other hand, speeding, trespass etc those are only chargeable to the driver regardless of the ownership.  The issue here is crime, not damages to property.  If I use my buddies car and drive drunk, he is charged with nothing.  If I do that and kill a guy in an accident, his insurance is in play and he may be sued and lose.

My wife's car got hit from behind at a light a few years ago, the driver took off. We went to the police, reported what happened and filed a report. We tracked the car down the next day at the guys house, took pics, got the address and went to the police. They told us there was nothing they could do because we could not prove the owner of the vehicle was the one driving and hitting my car. They explained that the driver of the vehicle was responsible for the car, not the owner.