collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: Is the WDFW guilty of criminal negligence?  (Read 1517 times)

Offline bbarnes

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2008
  • Posts: 525
  • 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

2025 blacktail rut thread by brew
[Today at 05:56:21 PM]


No upland with dog during deer and elk season? by Bob33
[Today at 05:42:54 PM]


E WA waterfowl guide by ellensburgpo
[Today at 05:19:57 PM]


Winthrop - Winter Range Road Closures by timberfaller
[Today at 05:14:47 PM]


Anyone use game carts? by Stein
[Today at 05:12:33 PM]


Pack wheel by Tbar
[Today at 03:58:15 PM]


2025 deer, let's see em! by bigmacc
[Today at 03:45:16 PM]


Mushroom ID Thread by RobinHoodlum
[Today at 03:39:43 PM]


Mt. St. Helens Goat by Gonehuntin01
[Today at 03:23:04 PM]


West side antler buyers by mikey549
[Today at 02:56:08 PM]


Where do the bulls go? by mikey549
[Today at 02:49:14 PM]


My new BB Gun by JDHasty
[Today at 02:41:00 PM]


Comment against Ski Resort expanding into Colockum elk/deer habitat by Boss .300 winmag
[Today at 02:11:14 PM]


Supreme Court Declines to Hear Corner-Crossing Case by Tbar
[Today at 01:43:14 PM]


Looking for Taxidermist Recommendations by Tball77
[Today at 01:23:25 PM]


Duck Boat Blind by metlhead
[Today at 12:44:56 PM]


Let’s see ur heavy pack out pics by Mtnwalker
[Today at 12:43:03 PM]


Shadypass road / fs5900 closed by Transka
[Today at 11:48:56 AM]


New property cams checked by finnman
[Today at 11:36:13 AM]


Desert unit 290 October buck hunt by Mtnwalker
[Today at 11:32:12 AM]

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2025, SimplePortal