Hunter facing charges after death of beloved elk named Bullwinkle

[Alchase]

LOL,
list of people they will have to sue gets longer every day.

[Buckmark]

A LEO officer whether preset or on the phone can not change then law, he or she can not change the law, rules, rcw's or reg's on the fly..
They can not issue someone the right to circumnavigate the rules, laws, game regs etc and the time....

My friend the WSP can not tell, me it's ok to drive home drunk no more than a WDFW Officer can tell someone it is ok to shoot an animal in a area closed to that for everyone....sorry but i call BS. It is not a judgment call or an interpretation,  the hunter was in an area where it was not legal and no matter what some paid LEO told him it was not legal!!!!

[JDHasty]

That Wideopenspaces story was not posted by a fan of Todd Reichert.  I had to go downstairs to read it, it kept crashing my old beater of an iPad.

[Skillet]

A LEO officer whether preset or on the phone can not change then law, he or she can not change the law, rules, rcw's or reg's on the fly..
They can not issue someone the right to circumnavigate the rules, laws, game regs etc and the time....

My friend the WSP can not tell, me it's ok to drive home drunk no more than a WDFW Officer can tell someone it is ok to shoot an animal in a area closed to that for everyone....sorry but i call BS. It is not a judgment call or an interpretation,  the hunter was in an area where it was not legal and no matter what some paid LEO told him it was not legal!!!!

This is all very true, BUT -
The punishment will depend on how naive the judge is, and how much of a "I'm just a dumb old hunter" face the defendant can hang on his head. 

In a completely unrelated train of thought, the fact that one of the worst known poachers in Washington history, Bona Bunphoath, got only 30 days community service and 60 days home detention just popped into my head.  Not sure why. 

[Bean Counter]

This guy should be charged with a FELONY! No more hunting, no more guns!

Makes me sick. What a pathetic excuse for a man.

Sorry but you lose people like me here. This is where I get off the train.

Voting restrictions, long prison time, and firearms removal ought be reserved for the most heinous in society: child molesters, murderers, Liberals, etc.

[Bango skank]

Can someone point me to the RCW or WDFW enacting legislation that grants WDFW enforcement officers the authority to suspend, temporarily or situationally, the issued regulations of the department?

Oh, and is there anything but a "he said" that mr Grant gave his permission verbally? Anything that documents his action? Recording? Text? Email? 

Assuming this permission could be documented, it seems to me it would only be evidence that the Sgt and the hunter should both be prosecuted, rather than a basis that the hunter is without fault. If a police officer gives me "permission" to steal a car, I'm pretty sure I'm still going to jail if another officer arrests me for it.  Primarily because I don't hear anyone claiming that the legality was in question, only whether or not they tried to get someone to give them extrajudicial Okee Dokee.

Feel free to correct me if that's wrong. But I have seen nothing that suggests that anyone misunderstood the unit the game was in or if it had any branch antlered season that would make it open to the tag holder.  I'd have a slightly different opinion if someone was making a reasonable claim that the unit location was unclear or that a reg was ambiguous and they needed WDFW to clear it up, haven't seen that.

Well said.  Pretty much what i wanted to say, but i lacked the motivation to carefully consider my words enough to put them together as coherently and maturely.

[Whitenuckles]

This guy should be charged with a FELONY! No more hunting, no more guns!

Makes me sick. What a pathetic excuse for a man.

Sorry but you lose people like me here. This is where I get off the train.

Voting restrictions, long prison time, and firearms removal ought be reserved for the most heinous in society: child molesters, murderers, Liberals, etc.

If the guy broke the law while hunting and using a firearm, and supposably multiple times. He absolutely should NOT have the right and privilege to do it again. 

[Bean Counter]

Hmm.. Well to me, if something is a right, it is NOT a privilege. The RKBA is a right. Ergo it must never be looked at as a privilege. I reject the notion that hunting is a privilege but absent a constitutional amendment defining it as a right then its a matter of state law where most call it a privilege. Restrict it as you will according to the legislative process--I don't want to see people go to prison for a single animal involving a first time offense. Big fines? Maybe. Prison time? Not agreeing to that. Just my

[Whitenuckles]

Hmm.. Well to me, if something is a right, it is NOT a privilege. The RKBA is a right. Ergo it must never be looked at as a privilege. I reject the notion that hunting is a privilege but absent a constitutional amendment defining it as a right then its a matter of state law where most call it a privilege. Restrict it as you will according to the legislative process--I don't want to see people go to prison for a single animal involving a first time offense. Big fines? Maybe. Prison time? Not agreeing to that. Just my

*censored* I see no difference here. I personally think that the life of a bull is worth more than money.

 But, like I said, I see your side of it too.
 


(unsubstantiated claim removed)

[mfswallace]

Hmm.. Well to me, if something is a right, it is NOT a privilege. The RKBA is a right. Ergo it must never be looked at as a privilege. I reject the notion that hunting is a privilege but absent a constitutional amendment defining it as a right then its a matter of state law where most call it a privilege. Restrict it as you will according to the legislative process--I don't want to see people go to prison for a single animal involving a first time offense. Big fines? Maybe. Prison time? Not agreeing to that. Just my

Not his first rodeo

[Whitenuckles]

Hmm.. Well to me, if something is a right, it is NOT a privilege. The RKBA is a right. Ergo it must never be looked at as a privilege. I reject the notion that hunting is a privilege but absent a constitutional amendment defining it as a right then its a matter of state law where most call it a privilege. Restrict it as you will according to the legislative process--I don't want to see people go to prison for a single animal involving a first time offense. Big fines? Maybe. Prison time? Not agreeing to that. Just my

Not his first rodeo

*censored*


(unsubstantiated claim removed)

[Bean Counter]

My opinions are general in nature and aren't necessarily a perspective on this particular case.

Organized, commercial poaching rings and repeat offenders should have the heat turned up.    IDK whether that's this case or not.

[bearpaw]

I don't see a problem with citing other news stories or discussing this issue. The last topic was removed due to unsubstantiated accusations that were potentially slanderous, we were asked to remove the topic or risk legal action. If you want this topic to remain on the forum please do not post unsubstantiated accusations or forum management will be forced to remove the topic.

[JDHasty]

OK, here are some facts that one individual who is involved in this latest case would rather you not know, but are easily validated by going online?

1 - Todd Reichert hired Helicopter services in 2007
2 - Todd Reichert plead guilty in 2012 to having lied about having paid Jon Wick to take him to an elk
3 - The helicopter was used by Jon Wick for spotting elk from the air w/in 24 hours his clandestine (see above Todd Reichert did not want anyone to know he was Wick's client) hunting.

http://www.lagrandeobserver.com/csp/mediapool/sites/LaGrandeObserver/LocalState/story.csp?cid=4089345&sid=824&fid=151

to be continued...


 

[popeshawnpaul]

So we now have proposed valid info informing that WDFW officer Grant and other WDFW actors reportedly authorized the harvest of this elk.  How does this play out legally?  Here is the appropriate statute:

RCW 77.15.010
Exemption for department actions.
A person is not guilty of a crime under this chapter if the person is an officer, employee, or agent of the department lawfully acting in the course of his or her authorized duties.
[ 1998 c 190 § 2.]

He isn't an employee and probably not an agent of the department acting in the course of their duties.  If he doesn't fall under that statute, then how would this play out?  Intent.  Do you need intent for Unlawful Big Game Hunting?  Or is it strict liability like a speeding ticket?

RCW 77.15.410
Unlawful hunting of big game—Penalty.
(1) A person is guilty of unlawful hunting of big game in the second degree if the person:
(a) Hunts for, takes, or possesses big game and the person does not have and possess all licenses, tags, or permits required under this title; or
(b) Violates any department rule regarding seasons, bag or possession limits, closed areas including game reserves, closed times, or any other rule governing the hunting, taking, or possession of big game.
(2) A person is guilty of unlawful hunting of big game in the first degree if the person commits the act described in subsection (1) of this section and:
(a) The person hunts for, takes, or possesses three or more big game animals within the same course of events; or
(b) The act occurs within five years of the date of a prior conviction under this title involving unlawful hunting, killing, possessing, or taking big game.
(3)(a) Unlawful hunting of big game in the second degree is a gross misdemeanor. Upon conviction of an offense involving killing or possession of big game taken during a closed season, closed area, without the proper license, tag, or permit using an unlawful method, or in excess of the bag or possession limit, the department shall revoke all of the person's hunting licenses and tags and order a suspension of the person's hunting privileges for two years.
(b) Unlawful hunting of big game in the first degree is a class C felony. Upon conviction, the department shall revoke all of the person's hunting licenses or tags and order the person's hunting privileges suspended for ten years.
(4) For the purposes of this section, "same course of events" means within one twenty-four hour period, or a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts that are unlawful under subsection (1) of this section, over a period of time evidencing a continuity of purpose.

Intent is not specifically enumerated in the statute.  Is it implied?  What does "takes" mean under subsection (1)(a)?  If I hit this elk on the road have I taken it?  Did I intend to take it?  If I fall a tree on my property and it hits the elk have I "taken" it?  If I put a coyote trap out on my property and it accidentally kills this elk have I hunted or taken it?  Would I be prosecuted for it or not?  Does intent only matter if a prosecutor is looking to charge the case?

Can the attorney get this jury instruction in somehow on this case?

WPIC 10.01 Intent—Intentionally—Definition
A person acts with intent or intentionally when acting with the objective or purpose to accomplish a result that constitutes a crime.

It seems difficult.  Or if not, is the strategy to argue to the jury the WDFW authorized this and it's not the defendant's fault.  It would essentially be a nullification argument and would need to be carefully made by counsel as you are not allowed to argue nullification in WA under our law.  These are the interesting thoughts I have and what I will be looking for.  Or does the nullification get argued with the prosecutor to cut a deal?  Any prosecutor going into this trial would know this is going to be a likely defense and does that sway them from going for the conviction?  Or is the strategy to prolong the case past September when the 2016 raffle tag can be used and then plea to the charge knowing the defendant won't hunt for a few years and will go to Africa or Canada or something?  Time will tell...