Washington Griz Poached

Big Game Hunting > Bear Hunting

<< < (13/14) > >>

bobcat:
I agree, I was just saying that is how the judge and/or prosecuting attorney will see it. No they obviously didn't intend to kill a grizzly, but they DID intend to transport it from Colville area to Moses Lake, and then bury the evidence.

I don't know what I would have done if I was put in that situation.

I might have been just as stupid and done the same thing. :o :bash:

509er:

--- Quote from: bobcat on September 09, 2009, 07:37:13 PM ---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.

--- End quote ---

:yeah:

ctwiggs1:

--- Quote from: colockumelk on September 09, 2009, 04:59:25 PM ---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:)

--- End quote ---

Negligence couldn't substitute? Like "failing to take the time to identify the target?" Do these guys realize they are carrying high power rifles, not BB guns?

These jokers got trigger happy and killed a griz :bash: After they realized it, they buried the evidence instead of turning themselves in :yike:

I think the prosecutor could get them with negligence or intent :'(

I don't like the idea of jail time, but I do think they should be fined. People make mistakes, so I don't like the idea of giving someone jail time over something that didn't affect another human being. However, I do think a fine would get the point across that they need to be more careful.

8)

Curtis

bearpaw:
I agree with some fine, after all they killed a grizzly and it's against the law. Stupidity is not a legal defense, however, I would be somewhat leniant on the penalty.

But if I was the judge, I would speak pointedly to the arresting wildlife officer and tell him he needs to speak to the chief of enforcement and WDFW needs to get a Grizzly Bear test online, and it needs to be a prerequisite for a bear license.

In my opinion 50% of the blame lies with the state for lack of education.... :twocents:

I will be willing to lay $100 on the line that 50% of the hunters in the woods could not pass the Montana bear test the first time... ;)

hayes202:
I bet with the Communist state they get in more trouble the the kid that shot and killed the hiker.

Navigation

 Message Index

Go to full version