Whitman County Man Admits Wolf Wasn't Threatening Life or Property When he Shot

[bigtex]

Shot wolf not threatening humans or livestock

The Associated Press February 5, 2015

PULLMAN, Wash — A Whitman County man who shot a gray wolf last fall told investigators the animal did not pose an imminent threat to humans or livestock.

That's according to a report released by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife after a public records request by the Moscow-Pullman Daily News.

Officers investigating the October shooting say Jonathan M. Rasmussen and his wife did not indicate the wolf posed a threat at the time of the shooting south of Pullman.

Investigators say they found evidence of unlawful taking of wildlife, and recommended a misdemeanor charge be filed. No charges have been filed yet by the Whitman County Prosecutor's Office.

Under Washington law, it is illegal to shoot a wolf unless it is attacking livestock or people.

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2015/02/05/4117840/shot-wolf-not-threatening-humans.html#storylink=cpy

[GrainfedMuley]

Oh darn.....one less wolf in Washington         

[danderson]

There isn't a jury around that would convict him for protecting his family from harm, at least in eastern Wash, another waste of tax payers money.

[pianoman9701]

There isn't a jury around that would convict him for protecting his family from harm, at least in eastern Wash, another waste of tax payers money.

You forget in which county he lives. Whitman is full of wolf-hugging liberals. He should've kept his mouth shut.

[danderson]

Just because you read something in the news paper doesn't make  it true, rumors tend to have a life of there own.

[Skillet]

Weird wording in that article. It's a big leap to take from "did not indicate the wolf posed a threat at the time" to "told investigators the animal did not pose an imminent threat."

[pianoman9701]

Just because you read something in the news paper doesn't make  it true, rumors tend to have a life of there own.

I'm not saying he should or shouldn't be convicted. People under investigation for anything tend to provide the most evidence against themselves, whether that be from talking to investigators without the presence of council, or to the media because they get the "15 seconds of fame diarrhea of the mouth" syndrome.

[timberfaller]

Sorry but, see wolf, see threat!  its that simple!!!

There IS a reason they were thinned out years ago!

[pianoman9701]

Sorry but, see wolf, see threat!  its that simple!!!

There IS a reason they were thinned out years ago!

The point is that the guy made a statement saying the wolf he shot presented no imminent threat. He clearly did himself no favors by saying that, especially considering that he's under investigation for shooting an endangered species in the State of WA. Whether or not he actually performed a service by his act isn't pertinent. If and when this goes to trial, his comments will not help his defense.

[jasnt]

Sorry but, see wolf, see threat!  its that simple!!!

There IS a reason they were thinned out years ago!

The point is that the guy made a statement saying the wolf he shot presented no imminent threat. He clearly did himself no favors by saying that, especially considering that he's under investigation for shooting an endangered species in the State of WA. Whether or not he actually performed a service by his act isn't pertinent. If and when this goes to trial, his comments will not help his defense.

yup. Rule #1 (according to my lawyer) never ever talk to Leo without counsel!

[BOWHUNTER45]

Why would he throw himself under the bus  That's just crazy !!!!! I am sure they put the scare tactics to him .

[bobcat]

I don't see how his statement changes anything. From the original story it was apparent that the wolf wasn't a threat to anyone or anything.

From the the Spokane newspaper, the Spokesman Review, on October 13, 2014:

“They determined that the wolf had been shot by a farmer who had pursued the animal for several miles in his vehicle after seeing it near his farm,” said Nate Pamplin, the agency’s wildlife program director.

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2014/oct/13/wolf-shot-whitman-county-charges-pending/


How could it possibly be a threat if he had to follow it for several miles in his vehicle?

[Jingles]

If and that is a VERY BIG IF the guy did in fact say that the wolf did not present any danger to himself his family or live stock he is dumber than a box of rocks especially if he originally said it did and even more so for saying anything in the first place.
However it would not surprise me that one of the investigating authorities has changed his words or kept hounding him and or his family to get them to say something they wanted to hear.

Lets face it,,,, it is damned hard to get ballistics matches off buckshot from a smooth bore ( not saying he used a shotgun) and we all know that wolf lovers wouldn't let it go until they had someone to nail up as an example

[Bean Counter]

Sorry but, see wolf, see threat!  its that simple!!!

There IS a reason they were thinned out years ago!

The point is that the guy made a statement saying the wolf he shot presented no imminent threat. He clearly did himself no favors by saying that, especially considering that he's under investigation for shooting an endangered species in the State of WA. Whether or not he actually performed a service by his act isn't pertinent. If and when this goes to trial, his comments will not help his defense.

yup. Rule #1 (according to my lawyer) never ever talk to Leo without counsel!

Laywer up and shut up!

[pianoman9701]

If and that is a VERY BIG IF the guy did in fact say that the wolf did not present any danger to himself his family or live stock he is dumber than a box of rocks especially if he originally said it did and even more so for saying anything in the first place.
However it would not surprise me that one of the investigating authorities has changed his words or kept hounding him and or his family to get them to say something they wanted to hear.

Lets face it,,,, it is damned hard to get ballistics matches off buckshot from a smooth bore ( not saying he used a shotgun) and we all know that wolf lovers wouldn't let it go until they had someone to nail up as an example

LE has no power to move your lips and make words come out of your mouth. Only you can do that. In a trial, they'll use video and audio tapes of the man's interviews as evidence against him, whether under LE questioning or his statements to the media.  And as far as ballistics are concerned, I believe he's admitted to shooting the wolf, so ballistics are unnecessary.