collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: Is the WDFW guilty of criminal negligence?  (Read 1550 times)

Offline bbarnes

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2008
  • Posts: 529
  • Location: Mt Saint Helens
    • Mt Saint Helens Rescue .com
Is the WDFW guilty of criminal negligence?
« on: December 07, 2009, 10:10:18 PM »
To others and myself there is no other way to look the situation,of bringing wolfs to this state.Who's liable if some one is hurt or killed by these predators,when our WDFW is allowing them to come here.There also talking about relocating them to,   Mt.saint Helen's and willapa hills.This is no different then owning a pit bull, and having it hurt or kill some one in front of your home.The outdoors people on this site and others, need to contact every polition in this state and ask them who's the liable party.Our wild life and our heritage is at stake here,a few phone calls and emails can't hurt, its the least we all can do before it's to late.Here's the definition you decide.To constitute a crime, there must be an actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") accompanied by the mens rea (see concurrence). Negligence shows the least level of culpability, intention being the most serious and recklessness of intermediate seriousness, overlapping with gross negligence. The distinction between recklessness and criminal negligence lies in the presence or absence of foresight as to the prohibited consequences. Recklessness is usually described as a 'malfeasance' where the defendant knowingly exposes another to the risk of injury. The fault lies in being willing to run the risk. But criminal negligence is a 'misfeasance or 'nonfeasance' (see omission), where the fault lies in the failure to foresee and so allow otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest. In some cases this failure can rise to the level of willful blindness where the individual intentionally avoids adverting to the reality of a situation (note that in the United States, there may sometimes be a slightly different interpretation for willful blindness). The degree of culpability is determined by applying a reasonable person standard. Criminal negligence becomes "gross" when the failure to foresee involves a "wanton disregard for human life" (see the discussion in corporate manslaughter).

The test of any mens rea element is always based on an assessment of whether the accused had foresight of the prohibited consequences and desired to cause those consequences to occur.  Thanks B Barnes keeping public lands public.

 


* Advertisement

* Recent Topics

Montana Cutting Deer Licenses by pianoman9701
[Today at 01:11:56 PM]


GO 2025 15th Annual Hunting-Washington Christmas Gift Exchange by elkaholic123
[Today at 12:11:55 PM]


Pack Llamas vs Pack Goats by ghosthunter
[Today at 11:59:57 AM]


Coyote hunting with dogs by brokentrail
[Today at 11:04:42 AM]


Long Island Hunt by Rugergunsite308
[Today at 10:37:25 AM]


35 whelen by Henrydog
[Today at 10:34:20 AM]


Nice bachelor herd by pianoman9701
[Today at 09:46:46 AM]


Weatherby Long Range Steel Choke by Henrydog
[Today at 09:18:06 AM]


Four less by outdooraddict
[Today at 07:44:11 AM]


3 pintails by full choke
[Yesterday at 09:31:40 PM]


Report Wolf Sightings Here - Hunting-Washington Wolf Count 158+ by highcountry_hunter
[Yesterday at 07:50:08 PM]


Idaho Trapping Journal 2025/26 by TeacherMan
[Yesterday at 07:39:00 PM]


Building out duck boat by Wetwoodshunter
[Yesterday at 06:56:27 PM]


Banded bluebill by Mfowl
[Yesterday at 06:16:28 PM]


“Recreational trappers”? by EnglishSetter
[Yesterday at 12:56:37 PM]


Spicy garlic Elk Brats by Norman89
[Yesterday at 12:47:34 PM]


Elk bratwurst by Norman89
[Yesterday at 12:46:56 PM]


Elk breakfast sausage patty’s by Norman89
[Yesterday at 12:46:03 PM]


Idaho on the verge of outlawing by Tbar
[Yesterday at 10:47:00 AM]


WA Bucket List….Mule Deer Permit by C-Money
[Yesterday at 07:30:24 AM]

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2025, SimplePortal