Hunter facing charges after death of beloved elk named Bullwinkle

[JimmyHoffa]

No, it's still punishment before any verdict.  If personal safety is really an issue, the person should be held in jail.

Okay.  I am thinking taking the guns away is cheaper than putting them in jail, in both cases they don't have access to the firearms.  In my case they can still injure the person with a  knife, hatchet, baseball bat or whatever.  I like your solution better lock them up then everyone is safer.  It would just suck to get locked up because somebody said you assaulted them.  I personally would rather just loose my guns for a while as I fought through the allegations.  Sounds like you think we should lock them up as soon as an allegation is made. We will have to agree to disagree.

This has got the thread totally off track though. If I were accused I wouldn't want my right to hunt taken away, I would want my day in court first.

There would be nothing to stop someone who was "jealous" of making an accusation every year to keep me from hunting if that were the case.

I agree, you are presumed innocent.  TR should be allowed to hunt during this time period.  I was just pointing out to bearpaw, that there are cases where you lose rights (not privileges) during the court phase.  Not to get off track too much, but most of the people awaiting trial for some crime of violence that are free on bail were determined to not be a threat...yet still lose (known) guns.  Can easily just buy one from a gang banger to replace what the court took.  Just seems wonky.

[Rainier10]

No, it's still punishment before any verdict.  If personal safety is really an issue, the person should be held in jail.

Okay.  I am thinking taking the guns away is cheaper than putting them in jail, in both cases they don't have access to the firearms.  In my case they can still injure the person with a  knife, hatchet, baseball bat or whatever.  I like your solution better lock them up then everyone is safer.  It would just suck to get locked up because somebody said you assaulted them.  I personally would rather just loose my guns for a while as I fought through the allegations.  Sounds like you think we should lock them up as soon as an allegation is made. We will have to agree to disagree.

This has got the thread totally off track though. If I were accused I wouldn't want my right to hunt taken away, I would want my day in court first.

There would be nothing to stop someone who was "jealous" of making an accusation every year to keep me from hunting if that were the case.

I agree, you are presumed innocent.  TR should be allowed to hunt during this time period.  I was just pointing out to bearpaw, that there are cases where you lose rights (not privileges) during the court phase.  Not to get off track too much, but most of the people awaiting trial for some crime of violence that are free on bail were determined to not be a threat...yet still lose (known) guns.  Can easily just buy one from a gang banger to replace what the court took.  Just seems wonky.

[idahohuntr]

There would be nothing to stop someone who was "jealous" of making an accusation every year to keep me from hunting if that were the case.

There is a difference between someone accusing you...he said/she said stuff...and a Prosecutor filing criminal charges.  In this specific case, and many big game poaching cases, I would likely support suspension of hunting privileges when criminal charges are filed.  I bet Reichert wouldn't be filing all these extensions and trying to drag this out for 5 years like he did in his last criminal poaching case if all hunting privileges were suspended pending the outcome of his charges.  He has a right to a speedy trial...if he's innocent and wants his hunting privleges restored...then he should get on the ball.  If he wants to waive that right so he can milk the system and drive up costs to taxpayers...that's his choice...but he shouldn't be allowed to do it while maintaining hunting privileges.

[bearpaw]

There would be nothing to stop someone who was "jealous" of making an accusation every year to keep me from hunting if that were the case.

There is a difference between someone accusing you...he said/she said stuff...and a Prosecutor filing criminal charges.  In this specific case, and many big game poaching cases, I would likely support suspension of hunting privileges when criminal charges are filed.  I bet Reichert wouldn't be filing all these extensions and trying to drag this out for 5 years like he did in his last criminal poaching case if all hunting privileges were suspended pending the outcome of his charges.  He has a right to a speedy trial...if he's innocent and wants his hunting privleges restored...then he should get on the ball.  If he wants to waive that right so he can milk the system and drive up costs to taxpayers...that's his choice...but he shouldn't be allowed to do it while maintaining hunting privileges.

If his story is true that WDFW gave him permission I've got a Benjamin that says the court finds him innocent. You are saying he should lose his privileges in the mean time? Sorry but that doesn't fly very well!

[Curly]

I have to agree with Bpaw on this one. People should not be losing rights while waiting for their day in court. I don't like how they can drag things out but I don't think we really want potentially innocent people losing rights.

[bearpaw]

Seems like a very slippery slope to me to start handing out punishment before guilt is known!

[kentrek]

Seems like a very slippery slope to me to start handing out punishment before guilt is known!

  we have a system for a reason

[blackveltbowhunter]

   If anything this case and discussion has shown the flaws and shortcoming within the system, and hopefully ideas on how to avoid them. 

[Rainier10]

 

[Curly]

I bet TR wishes he had the permission in writing. If he really did get permission to shoot a branched bull in 334 then it is bs that he was cited (even if shooting the bull might be ethically wrong in some people's minds). It may be a good lesson; hopefully in the future if a guy gets the okay from a wdfw employee for something, a followup text or email should be requested.

[bearpaw]

I bet TR wishes he had the permission in writing. If he really did get permission to shoot a branched bull in 334 then it is bs that he was cited (even if shooting the bull might be ethically wrong in some people's minds). It may be a good lesson; hopefully in the future if a guy gets the okay from a wdfw employee for something, a followup text or email should be requested.

  I would think that if a WDFW employee told him he could shoot they would be honest about it. But, this topic has made me rethink getting written clarification when I talk to F&G personnel in any state.

[bobcat]

Yeah especially if it's permission to violate the law and not just clarification of the law.

[bearpaw]

Yeah especially if it's permission to violate the law and not just clarification of the law.

I would certainly like to hear the reasoning why permission to shoot the bull was granted? 

[Rainier10]

Yeah especially if it's permission to violate the law and not just clarification of the law.

I would certainly like to hear the reasoning why permission to shoot the bull was granted? 

I am not so sure I want to hear the reason.  My dad used to say" don't ask a question that you are not ready for the worst possible answer to."  I am scared that what I hear when the dust settles might make me want to 

[idahohuntr]

There would be nothing to stop someone who was "jealous" of making an accusation every year to keep me from hunting if that were the case.

There is a difference between someone accusing you...he said/she said stuff...and a Prosecutor filing criminal charges.  In this specific case, and many big game poaching cases, I would likely support suspension of hunting privileges when criminal charges are filed.  I bet Reichert wouldn't be filing all these extensions and trying to drag this out for 5 years like he did in his last criminal poaching case if all hunting privileges were suspended pending the outcome of his charges.  He has a right to a speedy trial...if he's innocent and wants his hunting privleges restored...then he should get on the ball.  If he wants to waive that right so he can milk the system and drive up costs to taxpayers...that's his choice...but he shouldn't be allowed to do it while maintaining hunting privileges.

If his story is true that WDFW gave him permission I've got a Benjamin that says the court finds him innocent. You are saying he should lose his privileges in the mean time? Sorry but that doesn't fly very well!

Happens all day long with driving privileges...licenses are suspended even before any criminal charges are filed. He has the right to a speedy trial.  If he's innocent he can move quickly to his acquittal.

I agree with you - if Morgan Grant gave clear permission for him to shoot this bull in GMU 334, a jury will not convict him.  If WDFW/Grant confirms this defense that the officer gave clear permission, I fully support the immediate termination of Morgan Grant and a recall vote for the County Prosecutor for wasting resources.  If WDFW disputes the call or pertinent details, given Reicherts previous convictions for lying, then I am inclined to believe the State and hope Reichert is punished.

Given most of us were not there, and those that were are likely biased, we are all left to our own life experiences to weigh the various stories, theories, defenses, and accounts of the event which have been published.  I don't see a Prosecutor in a million years filing charges if the States lead officer is going to testify in support of the defense that he gave clear permission to shoot that bull in that location. I will be the first to say the State and County really, really screwed up if this phone call went down as some on here are suggesting.