Elk Poacher on Rugged Justice

[wa_archer]

So what i'm hearing from a lot of people on this topic is we should just not talk to LEO.  So with this young man who's father tells him to not say anything and they wont talk, what lesson does he learn?  Would you want your kids to do the same thing when you are asking them what they did wrong?  just lie to you or not tell you a thing?  How about we raise our children to be respected members of society who respect LEO, bosses, elders, etc. and take responsibility for their actions.  Instead of teaching them through our own actions its alright to hide and not take responsibilities, teaching them its alright to break the law and then not take responsibility.  Sounds like a great way to have productive members of society.  Can only imagine what other great role models the same parents are being to their children. 

Kids are like sponges well into life and will immolate what you do and how you show them to survive in society whether that be good or bad.  You would probably be surprised how much easier they would have been on the kid if he took responsibility for his actions.  Just like on Northwoods law with the kids ripping up the ranchers field. No courts just a promise to go back and do work to repay damages.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

wa_archer, unfortunately LEOs can make mistakes based on what you say, and they do. They can also make assumptions based on what you say, and they do. They can also fabricate evidence from what you say and some do. (Not all by a long shot) Innocent remarks can end up costing you. So no, other than giving them your ID and letting them do their job, I wouldn't say anything unless I was well aware of what was up. There is a reason for Miranda warnings. What you say can be used against you, whether it should be or not. If you suspect you are a suspect for any reason, you shouldn't engage in idle or other chit chat with an LEO. It's that simple.

I remember a few threads on here about LEOs who think EVERYONE is guilty of something and it's their job to figure out what. With that attitude out there, it's up to you to protect yourself.

[bigtex]

I just got a chance to stream this one since we don't get The Cable out here.

I think Cenci and the other officer came to the right conclusion: the young guy shot the spike. I also think nothing is going to come of it.

Here's some insight from a former cop: when we didn't arrest somebody or at least give them a citation at the scene, but were going to "refer it to the prosecutor" what that really meant was "we don't have Jack for probable cause." Sometimes you'd need to let something breathe for a while, while you built other evidence, but in this case, The Evidence Fairy is not coming. There's no ballistics or anything like that.

Cenci got the kid to make an admission, but not a confession.  Then his dad got him to shut his hole. That case is going nowhere.

What I REALLY wanted Cenci to ask the guy is the name of the mythical lawyer that will answer a cell call from out in the woods on a weekend.

Likewise the case of the convicted felon at the end hunting with his two boys is a giant bowl of mess. There's case law around convicted felons and family members possessing guns. What I couldn't determine was if one of the two boys was over 18, and thus could independently posses the gun and supervise is younger bro. That one also got "referred to the prosecutor."

Usually I avoid cop shows like the plague, but I thought I'd try this one. When I was working the road, I often fantasized about being a Gamey. Looks like its the same old stuff, just with less backup, but maybe prettier scenery.

I am the mythical lawyer you are so curious about.  What the gentlemen on the show reported was completely true.  I was able to speak with them immediately after the game wardens began to falsely accuse them.  Sorry to burst your bubble, the kid is innocent.  Stay tuned.

Of course the guy's lawyer is going to say he's innocent. Would be bad if his lawyer came on here and said he's guilty. 

[soccerftw123]

I like how whenever there is a spike elk issue they say something like " it is illegal to shoot a spike so the elk heard can increase" and then I look at the regs and think what the ****

[soccerftw123]

Thats in reference to east side regulations

[jason stevens]

I like how whenever there is a spike elk issue they say something like " it is illegal to shoot a spike so the elk heard can increase" and then I look at the regs and think what the ****

Exactly , it drives me nuts every episode.

[Bullkllr]

I like how whenever there is a spike elk issue they say something like " it is illegal to shoot a spike so the elk heard can increase" and then I look at the regs and think what the ****

Exactly , it drives me nuts every episode.

In the episode I'm watching right now there was another illegal spike kill. They ticketed the guy.

What was funny was they had a clip to show what a spike was- and the bull in the clip was at least a 2 point.

[Scott68]

So ... on tonight's episode they showed a guy shooting an elk decoy before shooting light.

He was cited for two gross misdemeanor offenses.

What do you think is an appropriate punishment for his conduct?

[Bean Counter]

Of course the guy's lawyer is going to say he's innocent. Would be bad if his lawyer came on here and said he's guilty. 

IIRC the ABA's lawyers code of ethics would prevent the attorney from proclaiming his clients innocence if the lawyer knows for a fact that client is guilty.

[Curly]

So ... on tonight's episode they showed a guy shooting an elk decoy before shooting light.

He was cited for two gross misdemeanor offenses.

What do you think is an appropriate punishment for his conduct?

I think forfeiting his rifle was too much.  Because his rifle was worth $3,500, he is paying way more than the next guy that may only have a $500 rifle.  Seems to me that the punishment should be similar for everyone guilty of that crime.    (Maybe they should just increase the fine by $1,000 and do away with the forfeiture).

Hard to have much sympathy though for guys that shoot animals in the dark like that.  I for one am glad they are doing these decoy sting operations.  I just wish the forfeiture laws would get revised in this state.

[bigtex]

So ... on tonight's episode they showed a guy shooting an elk decoy before shooting light.

He was cited for two gross misdemeanor offenses.

What do you think is an appropriate punishment for his conduct?

I think forfeiting his rifle was too much.  Because his rifle was worth $3,500, he is paying way more than the next guy that may only have a $500 rifle.  Seems to me that the punishment should be similar for everyone guilty of that crime.    (Maybe they should just increase the fine by $1,000 and do away with the forfeiture).

It's hard to increase the fine by $1,000 when the current fine right now is $0-5,000. Again, it's time to institute mandatory minimum penalties for offenses in WA.

[Curly]

Can you remind me why we don't have mandatory minimums?  What is the argument for not having them? 

[bigtex]

Can you remind me why we don't have mandatory minimums?  What is the argument for not having them? 

We don't have them because it's never passed the legislature. WDFW (or any agency) can't do it themselves, it takes a bill to pass the legislature. A lot of people are against it because some feel it is unfair.

[Whitpirate]

I think civil forfeiture laws are a license to steal and should be abolished.