Washington Griz Poached

Big Game Hunting > Bear Hunting

<< < (12/14) > >>

300UltraMagShooter:

Exactly!

Some of you guys sure like the guilty before proven innocent approach. As politicized as "endangered" species are, there is no chance in hell they would get a fair shake. Just look at some of the other post made about people protecting their property and then still getting nailed. Some sure are self-richeous when it comes to the law.

FYI The law isn't everything.

Sorry, but got looking at the site again after congratulating a member on a kill and saw this post. Had to respond. :P

--- Quote from: SHANE(WA) on August 06, 2009, 10:54:35 PM ---shoulda taken it back and set it on fire lol, why on earth if you messed up and take it to them? so they can still nail you, This state sucks, u try to do the right thing and they will nail you no matter what. Then you wonder why people try to hide it :chuckle: well no *censored*, they shot a grizz and didnt know, thats why they frickin burried it!!! Did they screw up yes.

--- End quote ---

DOUBLELUNG:
I'm no lawyer either, but after 20 years work around GWs, other LEOs and prosecutors, it is my understanding most hunting and fishing violations do not require an element of criminal intent, the criminal violation is the act itself and doesn't require intent, a.k.a. simple liability or absolute liability. Actus reus, if you like Latin.

For example, you shoot one animal, bag limit one, and two drop dead, it is a violation regardless of your intention to kill only one, or both animals.

colockumelk:
Yes Actus Reas is the actual criminal act. But, in order to get a convinction you need to prove something "beyond a reasonable doubt." In order to get this you need the Actus Reas which is the criminal act, as well as prove the Mens Reas "guilty mind."

That's all I'm saying. DL I'll defer to you because I"m sure you have alot more experience than this. I was just saying since they didn't intend to shoot a grizzly but intended to shoot a black bear; If the defense attorney can prove that they did in fact intend to shoot a black bear and not a grizzly they can get the charges knocked down to something else, other than a massive $10k fine and jail time. Just my :twocents:/2. (That's one cent since it's not even worth 2 cents:)

bobcat:
I think their biggest problem is the fact that they transported the bear after they were told it was a grizzly. If they wouldn't have done that and instead called the WDFW and confessed at that time then it wouldn't have been nearly so bad. Not to mention that they buried it after they got it home.

bearpaw:
I think it was a big case of scared $hitless and just being stupid when they figured out they messed up. :twocents:

Sure they are guilty, but in my book, not the max fine.....

If they were trying to sneak it from the beginning then I would agree with the max penalty, but I think they were innocent until the guy at the motel scared them with reality and they didn't know what to do, so they headed for home and eventually buried it thinking the problem would go away....stupid for sure....

Navigation

 Message Index

Go to full version