collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: Is the WDFW guilty of criminal negligence?  (Read 1512 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

Mt. St. Helens Goat by carpsniperg2
[Yesterday at 11:36:21 PM]


2025 Deer season/hunter399 by Dan-o
[Yesterday at 11:05:01 PM]


Desert unit 290 October buck hunt by Dan-o
[Yesterday at 10:55:13 PM]


Selkirk bull moose. by trophyhunt
[Yesterday at 10:33:02 PM]


Blue Tongue and EHD outbreak in NE Washington by kodiak06
[Yesterday at 09:54:25 PM]


Idaho on the verge of outlawing by mikey549
[Yesterday at 09:17:05 PM]


2021 bear had been previously shot before I killed him by D-Rock425
[Yesterday at 09:11:38 PM]


Rock creek gone? Next? by D-Rock425
[Yesterday at 09:01:52 PM]


Color phase fox by redi
[Yesterday at 08:58:03 PM]


49 DN Moose Success by Alchase
[Yesterday at 08:47:37 PM]


Selling Pistols and rifles by Tacticalhammer
[Yesterday at 07:02:19 PM]


Possible record bull? by Whitefoot
[Yesterday at 06:32:40 PM]


FS Surbu BFG 50 by Tacticalhammer
[Yesterday at 06:16:20 PM]


2025 deer, let's see em! by ljsommer
[Yesterday at 04:40:12 PM]


2025 elk success thread!! by ljsommer
[Yesterday at 04:38:38 PM]


Late Alta Muzzy by Pathfinder101
[Yesterday at 03:44:09 PM]


CWD drop off station- What a joke! by Stein
[Yesterday at 03:08:22 PM]


49 Degrees North Early Bull Moose by Pathfinder101
[Yesterday at 12:35:52 PM]


Early Huckleberry Bull Moose tag drawn! by TriggerMike
[Yesterday at 12:04:23 PM]


2025 blacktail rut thread by cavemann
[Yesterday at 10:11:36 AM]

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2025, SimplePortal