Post by: chad s. on January 29, 2015, 08:56:14 AM
Thanks
Post by: elkchaser54 on January 29, 2015, 09:55:40 AM
Post by: Curly on January 29, 2015, 09:59:48 AM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 29, 2015, 10:07:56 AM
Post by: jrebel on January 29, 2015, 10:11:20 AM
No excuse for that one .. I liked that show better than the 1st one .. I really like watching North Woods Law .. If you get a chance watch both of them and see how our wardens act compared to ours !
I caught both of them while at work last week....I like Northwoods Law way better. Our wardens come across as completed butt heads on the show. Kind of wish I had cable so I could watch them more often.
What did you think about the first date with a felon involving shooting in remote grant county???? :yike: :yike: Holy smokes....that warden may have saved that lady from being raped or even worse....killed. :yike: :yike:
Post by: bigtex on January 29, 2015, 10:14:40 AM
Anyone know the young man who supposedly shot the spike elk on the coast that was featured on Rugged Justice this past weekend? I don't really care who he is, just interested to know whatever came of it.If the officers didn't actually hand the individual a ticket the prosecutor has two years to file charges on the guy.
Thanks
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 29, 2015, 10:16:33 AM
Yes that was crazy and only knowing the guy for a couple hours ..good job on that one :tup:No excuse for that one .. I liked that show better than the 1st one .. I really like watching North Woods Law .. If you get a chance watch both of them and see how our wardens act compared to ours !
I caught both of them while at work last week....I like Northwoods Law way better. Our wardens come across as completed butt heads on the show. Kind of wish I had cable so I could watch them more often.
What did you think about the first date with a felon involving shooting in remote grant county???? :yike: :yike: Holy smokes....that warden may have saved that lady from being raped or even worse....killed. :yike: :yike:
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 29, 2015, 10:23:26 AM
That is about as stupid as it gets ...how can anyone think that's O.K ..If your guilty then you should be prosecuted with in a year not 2 ! Usually when someone is in trouble it takes a year of going to court dates or you spend months going to court to tell you that they applied for a continuance :dunno:Anyone know the young man who supposedly shot the spike elk on the coast that was featured on Rugged Justice this past weekend? I don't really care who he is, just interested to know whatever came of it.If the officers didn't actually hand the individual a ticket the prosecutor has two years to file charges on the guy.
Thanks
Post by: Curly on January 29, 2015, 10:46:11 AM
Anyone know the young man who supposedly shot the spike elk on the coast that was featured on Rugged Justice this past weekend? I don't really care who he is, just interested to know whatever came of it.
Thanks
They really had no definitive evidence. They couldn't find the bullet; But they had the story of the guy that called it in (and maybe he was the one that shot the spike?) and they had a statement apparently from the "kid" where he said something about he might have shot it. Oh, and they also had the 2 cases that Cenci said was suspicious because they were laying right next to each other.
The kid made a mistake of saying he might have shot it and if he gets on here and starts talking some more, that would likely be a mistake too.
Post by: bigtex on January 29, 2015, 11:01:19 AM
It's the statute of limitations which is 1 year for a misdemeanor and 2 for gross misdemeanors.That is about as stupid as it gets ...how can anyone think that's O.K ..If your guilty then you should be prosecuted with in a year not 2 ! Usually when someone is in trouble it takes a year of going to court dates or you spend months going to court to tell you that they applied for a continuance :dunno:Anyone know the young man who supposedly shot the spike elk on the coast that was featured on Rugged Justice this past weekend? I don't really care who he is, just interested to know whatever came of it.If the officers didn't actually hand the individual a ticket the prosecutor has two years to file charges on the guy.
Thanks
In the "old days" an officer would hand you a ticket with a court date you had to appear on. However as the state's population increased you would show up to court with say 50 over the people and only 30 would go before the judge, those remaining 20 would have their cases dismissed. With the current system the court can now schedule people so there are no "extras."
There are still a couple of the smaller counties that let officers give people court dates, but the method for most courts and agencies is to not give the person the criminal citation, have the officer send the report to the prosecutor and then the prosecutor can file charges whenever they want.
I have had prosecutors literally wait up until the week before the 1 or 2 year mark to file charges. An example I like to use is you can be contacted for underage drinking at 20.5 and not have your first court appearance until your 22.5.
This only applies to criminal offenses, not infractions.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 29, 2015, 11:11:43 AM
I don't support poaching in any way, but that was just a classic example of why you should not speak with LEO's...particularly in an uncertain situation like that. His dad did the right thing by telling Cenci et al. they are not speaking with them anymore...unfortunately damage was probably already done. Burden of proof is on the state. If all game wardens were good, honest people I would be less inclined to be so emphatic in not providing any information to wardens...sadly, way too many bad apples. A warden starts asking you where you've been hunting, did you shoot at anything today, have you seen anything...just follow the Marshawn Lynch model :chuckle:Anyone know the young man who supposedly shot the spike elk on the coast that was featured on Rugged Justice this past weekend? I don't really care who he is, just interested to know whatever came of it.
Thanks
They really had no definitive evidence. They couldn't find the bullet; But they had the story of the guy that called it in (and maybe he was the one that shot the spike?) and they had a statement apparently from the "kid" where he said something about he might have shot it. Oh, and they also had the 2 cases that Cenci said was suspicious because they were laying right next to each other.
The kid made a mistake of saying he might have shot it and if he gets on here and starts talking some more, that would likely be a mistake too.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 29, 2015, 11:12:32 AM
If he is under the age of 18, and actually persecuted his name wouldn't be released. I hope that if someone actually knows him they don't post his name on here.
I assume you meant prosecuted. Assuming he's 22, why wouldn't you want his name posted on here?
Post by: Curly on January 29, 2015, 11:26:41 AM
edit - sorry, I meant to say lung.
Post by: jrebel on January 29, 2015, 11:28:23 AM
Did anyone understand the point Cenci was trying to make when he held up the liver and said "now that is a kill shot" ? It was a double lung shot so yeah, of course that was a kill shot. I would think that even a non hunter would understand that a bullet hole through both lungs and a dead elk there would equal a "kill shot". Just seemed kind of weird to me.
I think he was trying to say it was not an accident. It was a deliberate kill shot. :dunno:
Post by: MtnMuley on January 29, 2015, 02:13:52 PM
Did anyone understand the point Cenci was trying to make when he held up the liver and said "now that is a kill shot" ? It was a double lung shot so yeah, of course that was a kill shot. I would think that even a non hunter would understand that a bullet hole through both lungs and a dead elk there would equal a "kill shot". Just seemed kind of weird to me.
As opposed to a gut shot or some other shot which could have possibly been accidental. A double lunger in the boiler room implies careful aim.
How many thousands of hunters every season imply a careful aim to the boiler room and fail to miss the intended target? To Cenci, I say get real and quit being a fake......you're looking like an even more dumb%&# to a lot of us. :twocents:
Post by: plugger on January 29, 2015, 05:52:12 PM
Post by: rackattack on January 29, 2015, 06:02:41 PM
Did anyone understand the point Cenci was trying to make when he held up the liver and said "now that is a kill shot" ? It was a double lung shot so yeah, of course that was a kill shot. I would think that even a non hunter would understand that a bullet hole through both lungs and a dead elk there would equal a "kill shot". Just seemed kind of weird to me.
As opposed to a gut shot or some other shot which could have possibly been accidental. A double lunger in the boiler room implies careful aim.
How many thousands of hunters every season imply a careful aim to the boiler room and fail to miss the intended target? To Cenci, I say get real and quit being a fake......you're looking like an even more dumb%&# to a lot of us. :twocents:
In Cenci's defense who knows how that quote was taken. He could have been explaining anything to the camera crew and they decided to use just that quote for the show because it made for good TV.
Post by: Wose on January 29, 2015, 10:29:13 PM
[/quote]
In Cenci's defense who knows how that quote was taken. He could have been explaining anything to the camera crew and they decided to use just that quote for the show because it made for good TV.
[/quote]
Having been interviewed for TV a dozen or so years ago, and had the interview heavily edited, I'll add a big +1 to that statement.
A few years ago I was at the Oregon Zoo at one of their new exhibits when the same reporter walked up to me. He didn't recognize me and said "would you like to be on tv about the new exhibit?"
He was a little puzzled when I said "I'd rather slam my b@lls in a car door.."
Post by: spin05 on February 02, 2015, 12:35:57 AM
No excuse for that one .. I liked that show better than the 1st one .. I really like watching North Woods Law .. If you get a chance watch both of them and see how our wardens act compared to ours !
Ive watched north woods law for years. With the exception of one guy.Those guys are complete dicks, and i hope our wardens dont pattern them selves after them. The Montana Wardens show, now those guys are a great mix of being cool but upholding the law. The north woods guys spend way to much time worry about what a ATV rider is doing on there own property.......
Post by: DIYARCHERYJUNKIE on February 02, 2015, 05:50:40 AM
Post by: Bean Counter on February 02, 2015, 06:52:27 AM
Post by: huntnnw on February 02, 2015, 09:27:38 PM
Post by: Wose on February 04, 2015, 08:51:35 PM
I think Cenci and the other officer came to the right conclusion: the young guy shot the spike. I also think nothing is going to come of it.
Here's some insight from a former cop: when we didn't arrest somebody or at least give them a citation at the scene, but were going to "refer it to the prosecutor" what that really meant was "we don't have Jack for probable cause." Sometimes you'd need to let something breathe for a while, while you built other evidence, but in this case, The Evidence Fairy is not coming. There's no ballistics or anything like that.
Cenci got the kid to make an admission, but not a confession. Then his dad got him to shut his hole. That case is going nowhere.
What I REALLY wanted Cenci to ask the guy is the name of the mythical lawyer that will answer a cell call from out in the woods on a weekend.
Likewise the case of the convicted felon at the end hunting with his two boys is a giant bowl of mess. There's case law around convicted felons and family members possessing guns. What I couldn't determine was if one of the two boys was over 18, and thus could independently posses the gun and supervise is younger bro. That one also got "referred to the prosecutor."
Usually I avoid cop shows like the plague, but I thought I'd try this one. When I was working the road, I often fantasized about being a Gamey. Looks like its the same old stuff, just with less backup, but maybe prettier scenery.
Post by: floatinghat on February 06, 2015, 10:25:54 AM
Wose, where did you stream. The AP site shows no full episodes for RJ.
Post by: Scott68 on February 07, 2015, 12:03:57 AM
As an attorney, I can tell you that I've taken plenty of calls, from plenty of locations, and at every hour of the day and night and on every day of the week.
However, I do turn off my cell phone when I'm waiting for daylight to break over my favorite hunting spot ... and I keep it off if I'm fortunate enough to get one down. Not gonna' take any calls when I'm enjoying the post-kill celebration!
Post by: Holtburg on February 20, 2015, 08:35:11 PM
I just got a chance to stream this one since we don't get The Cable out here.
I think Cenci and the other officer came to the right conclusion: the young guy shot the spike. I also think nothing is going to come of it.
Here's some insight from a former cop: when we didn't arrest somebody or at least give them a citation at the scene, but were going to "refer it to the prosecutor" what that really meant was "we don't have Jack for probable cause." Sometimes you'd need to let something breathe for a while, while you built other evidence, but in this case, The Evidence Fairy is not coming. There's no ballistics or anything like that.
Cenci got the kid to make an admission, but not a confession. Then his dad got him to shut his hole. That case is going nowhere.
What I REALLY wanted Cenci to ask the guy is the name of the mythical lawyer that will answer a cell call from out in the woods on a weekend.
Likewise the case of the convicted felon at the end hunting with his two boys is a giant bowl of mess. There's case law around convicted felons and family members possessing guns. What I couldn't determine was if one of the two boys was over 18, and thus could independently posses the gun and supervise is younger bro. That one also got "referred to the prosecutor."
Usually I avoid cop shows like the plague, but I thought I'd try this one. When I was working the road, I often fantasized about being a Gamey. Looks like its the same old stuff, just with less backup, but maybe prettier scenery.
I am the mythical lawyer you are so curious about. What the gentlemen on the show reported was completely true. I was able to speak with them immediately after the game wardens began to falsely accuse them. Sorry to burst your bubble, the kid is innocent. Stay tuned. :sry:
Post by: HntnFsh on February 21, 2015, 07:46:28 AM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on February 21, 2015, 07:55:38 AM
I just got a chance to stream this one since we don't get The Cable out here.
I think Cenci and the other officer came to the right conclusion: the young guy shot the spike. I also think nothing is going to come of it.
Here's some insight from a former cop: when we didn't arrest somebody or at least give them a citation at the scene, but were going to "refer it to the prosecutor" what that really meant was "we don't have Jack for probable cause." Sometimes you'd need to let something breathe for a while, while you built other evidence, but in this case, The Evidence Fairy is not coming. There's no ballistics or anything like that.
Cenci got the kid to make an admission, but not a confession. Then his dad got him to shut his hole. That case is going nowhere.
What I REALLY wanted Cenci to ask the guy is the name of the mythical lawyer that will answer a cell call from out in the woods on a weekend.
Likewise the case of the convicted felon at the end hunting with his two boys is a giant bowl of mess. There's case law around convicted felons and family members possessing guns. What I couldn't determine was if one of the two boys was over 18, and thus could independently posses the gun and supervise is younger bro. That one also got "referred to the prosecutor."
Usually I avoid cop shows like the plague, but I thought I'd try this one. When I was working the road, I often fantasized about being a Gamey. Looks like its the same old stuff, just with less backup, but maybe prettier scenery.
I am the mythical lawyer you are so curious about. What the gentlemen on the show reported was completely true. I was able to speak with them immediately after the game wardens began to falsely accuse them. Sorry to burst your bubble, the kid is innocent. Stay tuned. :sry:
Nice first post. :tup: You should post your contact info on here, you might drum up some more clients in the future. :chuckle:
Post by: Wose on February 21, 2015, 07:00:16 PM
Wose, where did you stream. The AP site shows no full episodes for RJ.
It's a $1.99 per episode on Amazon.
Post by: Wose on February 21, 2015, 07:02:33 PM
[/quote]
I am the mythical lawyer you are so curious about. What the gentlemen on the show reported was completely true. I was able to speak with them immediately after the game wardens began to falsely accuse them. Sorry to burst your bubble, the kid is innocent. Stay tuned. :sry:
[/quote]
LOL. Well, if you are his lawyer, and you think he's innocent, it must be my bad! :)
Post by: wa_archer on February 22, 2015, 07:20:44 PM
Kids are like sponges well into life and will immolate what you do and how you show them to survive in society whether that be good or bad. You would probably be surprised how much easier they would have been on the kid if he took responsibility for his actions. Just like on Northwoods law with the kids ripping up the ranchers field. No courts just a promise to go back and do work to repay damages.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 22, 2015, 07:32:33 PM
I remember a few threads on here about LEOs who think EVERYONE is guilty of something and it's their job to figure out what. With that attitude out there, it's up to you to protect yourself.
Post by: bigtex on February 22, 2015, 07:34:11 PM
Of course the guy's lawyer is going to say he's innocent. Would be bad if his lawyer came on here and said he's guilty. :dunno:I just got a chance to stream this one since we don't get The Cable out here.I am the mythical lawyer you are so curious about. What the gentlemen on the show reported was completely true. I was able to speak with them immediately after the game wardens began to falsely accuse them. Sorry to burst your bubble, the kid is innocent. Stay tuned. :sry:
I think Cenci and the other officer came to the right conclusion: the young guy shot the spike. I also think nothing is going to come of it.
Here's some insight from a former cop: when we didn't arrest somebody or at least give them a citation at the scene, but were going to "refer it to the prosecutor" what that really meant was "we don't have Jack for probable cause." Sometimes you'd need to let something breathe for a while, while you built other evidence, but in this case, The Evidence Fairy is not coming. There's no ballistics or anything like that.
Cenci got the kid to make an admission, but not a confession. Then his dad got him to shut his hole. That case is going nowhere.
What I REALLY wanted Cenci to ask the guy is the name of the mythical lawyer that will answer a cell call from out in the woods on a weekend.
Likewise the case of the convicted felon at the end hunting with his two boys is a giant bowl of mess. There's case law around convicted felons and family members possessing guns. What I couldn't determine was if one of the two boys was over 18, and thus could independently posses the gun and supervise is younger bro. That one also got "referred to the prosecutor."
Usually I avoid cop shows like the plague, but I thought I'd try this one. When I was working the road, I often fantasized about being a Gamey. Looks like its the same old stuff, just with less backup, but maybe prettier scenery.
Post by: soccerftw123 on February 22, 2015, 07:42:03 PM
Post by: soccerftw123 on February 22, 2015, 07:49:07 PM
Post by: jason stevens on February 22, 2015, 07:51:59 PM
I like how whenever there is a spike elk issue they say something like " it is illegal to shoot a spike so the elk heard can increase" and then I look at the regs and think what the ****Exactly , it drives me nuts every episode.
Post by: Bullkllr on February 22, 2015, 08:10:51 PM
I like how whenever there is a spike elk issue they say something like " it is illegal to shoot a spike so the elk heard can increase" and then I look at the regs and think what the ****Exactly , it drives me nuts every episode.
In the episode I'm watching right now there was another illegal spike kill. They ticketed the guy.
What was funny was they had a clip to show what a spike was- and the bull in the clip was at least a 2 point.
Post by: Scott68 on February 22, 2015, 10:58:56 PM
He was cited for two gross misdemeanor offenses.
What do you think is an appropriate punishment for his conduct?
Post by: Bean Counter on February 23, 2015, 03:12:53 AM
Quote
Of course the guy's lawyer is going to say he's innocent. Would be bad if his lawyer came on here and said he's guilty.
IIRC the ABA's lawyers code of ethics would prevent the attorney from proclaiming his clients innocence if the lawyer knows for a fact that client is guilty.
Post by: Curly on February 23, 2015, 04:28:58 AM
So ... on tonight's episode they showed a guy shooting an elk decoy before shooting light.
He was cited for two gross misdemeanor offenses.
What do you think is an appropriate punishment for his conduct?
I think forfeiting his rifle was too much. Because his rifle was worth $3,500, he is paying way more than the next guy that may only have a $500 rifle. Seems to me that the punishment should be similar for everyone guilty of that crime. :twocents: (Maybe they should just increase the fine by $1,000 and do away with the forfeiture). :dunno:
Hard to have much sympathy though for guys that shoot animals in the dark like that. I for one am glad they are doing these decoy sting operations. I just wish the forfeiture laws would get revised in this state.
Post by: bigtex on February 25, 2015, 08:53:51 AM
It's hard to increase the fine by $1,000 when the current fine right now is $0-5,000. Again, it's time to institute mandatory minimum penalties for offenses in WA.So ... on tonight's episode they showed a guy shooting an elk decoy before shooting light.I think forfeiting his rifle was too much. Because his rifle was worth $3,500, he is paying way more than the next guy that may only have a $500 rifle. Seems to me that the punishment should be similar for everyone guilty of that crime. :twocents: (Maybe they should just increase the fine by $1,000 and do away with the forfeiture). :dunno:
He was cited for two gross misdemeanor offenses.
What do you think is an appropriate punishment for his conduct?
Post by: Curly on February 25, 2015, 08:56:01 AM
Post by: bigtex on February 25, 2015, 08:58:54 AM
Can you remind me why we don't have mandatory minimums? What is the argument for not having them? :dunno:We don't have them because it's never passed the legislature. WDFW (or any agency) can't do it themselves, it takes a bill to pass the legislature. A lot of people are against it because some feel it is unfair.
Post by: Whitpirate on February 26, 2015, 07:36:41 AM