Should this be reported?!

[emac]

Sidebar:  When I see that robodeer,  is it legal to park, get out of the vehicle, circle around in the woods and send a load of lead into it's main circuit board??     I wonder if they're good on the BBQ?

I think the wardens would yell at you before you could shoot. Pat you on the back for doing it right and getting you outta there as quick as possible

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Stein]

From what I have seen, wardens pick either private land or places closed to certain types of hunting and then set it up near a road.  I imagine they don't want people legally shooting a decoy.

[Fl0und3rz]

Doesn't make any difference. Disabled or not. It's not safe to drive around with a rifle out the window, and it would be intimidating to anyone else driving or walking on the road. This is definitely not a normal practice for disabled hunters to drive around with their window down, with gun ready to shoot.

It does in that disabled are allowed to shoot from vehicle, in certain instances, and the rifle was pointed to the sky.  I'm not saying I agree with the practice, and it could give pause to non-hunters.  But we simply don't know much, other than the pictures and the account.

I would have less of an issue if it were disabled, gun was unloaded, etc.

Disabled hunter shouldn't be driving with their rifle half out the window. First, people don't know if it's loaded or unloaded. Second, there are a lot of people in Capitol Forest who are not hunters. I wouldn't want them seeing this and thinking it's normal. Even if someone is allowed to shoot from a vehicle, it must be off the road, and parked. So there's absolutely no reason to drive around like that with your gun ready to shoot in case a deer happens to step out in the road.

We can disagree, in part.

[jmscon]

Even if this was legal I’m guessing a warden would still have a lot to say to a guy driving around like that.

[pianoman9701]

That's just plain weird. I'm not sure the photo shows an actual violation of the law. If the rifle was loaded, then yes of course it would be against the law. The way he's holding it certainly make you think that might be the case.

You could email it to reportpoaching@dfw.wa.gov

That's just ridiculous and if I was law enforcement I'd be watching that vehicle for any possible violations. I bet that's the type of "hunter" they could nail with one of those robotic deer.

An argument could be made that this was an act of menacing.

[Curly]

I'm curious why the guy needs to be caught in the act when there is video evidence? Is it because the violation would depend on if the rifle was loaded?  Is it correct to assume no laws are broken if it wasn't losded?

[silverbullet6oh]

I'm curious why the guy needs to be caught in the act when there is video evidence? Is it because the violation would depend on if the rifle was loaded?  Is it correct to assume no laws are broken if it wasn't losded?

Based solely on the pictures provided, that would be correct. If the gun is unloaded, he has not broken the law.

His rifle, based on the pictures provided, is pointed up and the trajectory of the barrel (if a round were to be fired) is above the "picture taking persons" vehicle. Not pointed AT the person.  If that barrel was pointed further downward, and a vehicle passed by it, then that would be a violation based on RCW 9.41.230

Please keep in mind, I am not defending this guys actions, but what he has done is not unlawful. I personally think it is just impolite of him to have it out the window on side of passing vehicles.

- P

[coachcw]

He must be from south hill

[KFhunter]

Doesn't make any difference. Disabled or not. It's not safe to drive around with a rifle out the window, and it would be intimidating to anyone else driving or walking on the road. This is definitely not a normal practice for disabled hunters to drive around with their window down, with gun ready to shoot.

It does in that disabled are allowed to shoot from vehicle, in certain instances, and the rifle was pointed to the sky.  I'm not saying I agree with the practice, and it could give pause to non-hunters.  But we simply don't know much, other than the pictures and the account.

I would have less of an issue if it were disabled, gun was unloaded, etc.

It's not conclusive, but I don't see DP or DV license plates, nor do I see a placard hanging on the rearview mirror.

[bigtex]

I'm curious why the guy needs to be caught in the act when there is video evidence? Is it because the violation would depend on if the rifle was loaded?  Is it correct to assume no laws are broken if it wasn't losded?

Was the gun loaded? Was it a real gun? (sounds funny but lawyers will bring it up) Where was it pointed?

WA also has a misdemeanor presence rule where officers cannot arrest (or cite for criminal charges) someone for misdemeanor offenses unless they view the offense (or another officer views the offense). So as a result the most an officer could do is refer charges to the prosecutor to see if there is enough probable cause to charge the individual, in comparison to handing the guy a citation with a court date.

[bobcat]

Bigtex-

If a law enforcement officer saw someone driving on public roads like this guy, with a rifle hanging out the window, would he be likely to be stopped? Would this be in violation of any laws, assuming the gun was not loaded?

[KFhunter]

Of course, WDFW can stop anyone suspected to be in the act of hunting.  I'm sure they'd come to a skidding halt pretty quickly if they come across a scene like this 



"Would this be in violation of any laws, assuming the gun was not loaded?" 
I'll defer to BT but my thinking is no, notwithstanding exigent circumstances IE: brandishing

[bigtex]

Bigtex-

If a law enforcement officer saw someone driving on public roads like this guy, with a rifle hanging out the window, would he be likely to be stopped? Would this be in violation of any laws, assuming the gun was not loaded?

Stopped sure. But the laws are actually kind of gray if it's a crime, there's a lot of "ifs" involved. The two main violations would be"

RCW 9.41.230
(a) Aims any firearm, whether loaded or not, at or towards any human being

Of course this requires the individual to actually aim the gun at someone. In the photo it appears the muzzle is pointing up to the sky so this would be a hard one to prove. Also would have to prove the individual is actually "aiming" the gun, not simply pointing in a certain direction.

RCW 9.41.270
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.

So in this case you would have to prove:
a)the individual was displaying the firearm with intent to intimidate others, I'm just assuming that's probably not why he was doing this
OR
b)that the displaying the firearm warrants the alarm for the safety of other persons

While b may apply in the above I'll throw out a quick reply of what a average defense attorney would say. So if the individual is driving around with an unloaded gun (let's assume) with it's muzzle out the window pointing to the tree tops how does that cause someone to be concerned for their safety anymore than if they see someone stop their vehicle, exit with a rifle, load it and prepare to shoot a deer? You could make a case in both situations that the scenario causes someone to be concerned for their safety or not concerned for their safety. The big thing here is the guy was hunting, in the woods, in an open hunting area, with other armed hunters around. Change the scenario to the same individual driving around the Puyallup neighborhoods and the response would change.

[konradcountry]

It's capitol forest.

[ctwiggs1]

I just caught up on this thread and I'm now laughing my butt off at how many directions it went

Maypop, willpop - you guys are hilarious.