collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: Is the WDFW guilty of criminal negligence?  (Read 1527 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

Hunting by Republic/Ferry county by Scruffy
[Today at 03:17:57 AM]


Any buck clarification by Kc_Kracker
[Yesterday at 11:47:33 PM]


HUNTNNW 2025 trail cam thread and photos by huntnnw
[Yesterday at 11:35:53 PM]


Grizzly? by huntnnw
[Yesterday at 11:22:50 PM]


LINCOLN !! by BoomWhop
[Yesterday at 10:41:32 PM]


2025 Quality Tag Hunt. 💥VIDEO 💥 by Transam2340
[Yesterday at 09:23:59 PM]


2025 deer, let's see em! by Born2late
[Yesterday at 08:29:55 PM]


More special privileges by time2hunt
[Yesterday at 07:50:37 PM]


suppressor for a 7mm-08 by dreadi
[Yesterday at 07:17:18 PM]


Such cool looking animals by hunter399
[Yesterday at 06:17:53 PM]


GMU 111 antlered moose advice request by teanawayslayer
[Yesterday at 05:59:14 PM]


mushroom id on a hemlock by Jake Dogfish
[Yesterday at 05:46:26 PM]


Shooting someone else's injured buck - etiquette question by OutHouse
[Yesterday at 03:49:36 PM]


F150 Ecoboost Guys by kball4
[Yesterday at 02:17:00 PM]


Spur of the moment hunt by Gentrys
[Yesterday at 11:30:38 AM]


Best Spokane/CDA area pepperoni sticks? by Ridgeratt
[Yesterday at 10:37:16 AM]


Late Season archery elk by hughjorgan
[Yesterday at 09:56:36 AM]


2025 15th Annual Hunting-Washington Christmas Gift Exchange by wadu1
[Yesterday at 09:24:58 AM]


Surrounded by elk and this guy walks right up to me by dilleytech
[Yesterday at 09:23:25 AM]


My Entiat Late tag thread by C-Money
[Yesterday at 08:27:58 AM]

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2025, SimplePortal