| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1116.1 | Hangem | OASS::SOBCZYNSKI_L | | Tue Dec 24 1991 08:43 | 17 |
|
Ron,
I was always under the impression that if intent could be proven beyond
a reasonable doubt, although the objective of the intent was never
actually achieved, that an accused could be held accountable as if the
act had actually been committed. Without going into mitigating
circumstances etc.., the has law became diluted, and foregiveness so
that future attempts by an offender can be sucessful seems to be the
mode which a majority of our society supports.
The individual convicted of poaching on a decoy, the intent was there,
I believe he guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is based on the
facts presented, and nothing else.
Leonard
|
| 1116.2 | Got 'em for a change | BTOVT::REMILLARD_K | | Tue Dec 24 1991 10:37 | 18 |
|
re .0
Ron,
I see your point. The guy was guilty, tried to get off on a
technicality and lost for a change. This seems to be rare in our
justice system. I know the department suspended using decoys to
nab would be poachers, don't know if this incident sparked that or
not. I know the head of F&G Law Enforcement is against it, I spoke
to him myself at a meeting about it...he's from the old school. I
like the technique myself...it can help to isolate the poachers.
Kinda funny I had this warden living nearby, and on his glassed in
porch lived this wonderful full bodied mounted whitetail doe...
Kevin
|
| 1116.3 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | A Day at the Races | Tue Dec 24 1991 11:06 | 13 |
| > I think the guy got what he deserved, but I still find it a bit of
> a stretch saying it was poaching.
If he had been walking in the woods with a loaded gun out of season trying
to take a deer and had been caught before he was successful, would he be
poaching? I think so. If he shot at a deer and missed, would he be poaching?
I think so. His intent is clearly at issue here. He intended to take a deer
out of season. All of his actions pointed to this. The fact that he was
fooled into shooting a decoy is of no consequence as it merely establishes
intent in a nearly unimpeachable way. He was poaching. Poaching isn't just
be successful at taking an animal out of season. Poaching is even TRYING to
take an animal out of season. I believe his appeal was meritless, a view
fortunately upheld by the Vermont Supreme Court.
|
| 1116.4 | Hang'em high!!! | XCUSME::MALONE | the melon man | Tue Dec 24 1991 13:37 | 6 |
| I think he is guilty as H*LL... I'm glad to see that the justice
system is working.
dan
|
| 1116.5 | fine him | SKIVT::WENER | | Tue Dec 24 1991 13:42 | 10 |
|
My opinion, given the facts presented, is that he was poaching.
I also agree that the dept should adopt this as regular procedure-
setting up decoys, etc... Especially in an area that's being hit hard
by poachers.
But, I also believe that someone who shoots a buck during the
regular season and has his buddy, wife, or whoever tag it - in a
state that does not allow party hunting is also a poacher....
- Rob
|
| 1116.6 | guilty dawg! | ODIXIE::RHARRIS | only one shot, please! | Thu Dec 26 1991 11:06 | 7 |
| His hand was caught in the cookie jar. Regardless of him having a
cookie in his hand or not is irrevelant. He is guilty as the work week
is long during deer season. No ifs, ands, or butts.
It's nice to hear that the justice system works one in a million times.
Bob "who had no hunting stuff under the tree, boo hoo hoo" Harris
|
| 1116.7 | "Going to SING_SING" | XCUSME::MALONE | the melon man | Thu Dec 26 1991 14:48 | 8 |
| He did the crime, so now he must do the time!!! The man shot at a
decoy deer, If that was a real deer he would of been guilty of
poaching. HE now has to do the time, and I hope that they MAKE an
example out of him!!! To put the word out that it will not be
tolerated.
dan
|
| 1116.8 | | SA1794::CHARBONND | Only Nixon can go to China. | Thu Dec 26 1991 16:13 | 2 |
| Who was the judge who refused to 'buy' the technicality? That guy
should be on the Supreme Court, IMHO.
|
| 1116.9 | | ODIXIE::RHARRIS | only one shot, please! | Thu Dec 26 1991 18:24 | 4 |
| on the last reply, you put "IMHO". What does that mean?
Bob
|
| 1116.10 | | CARROL::LEFEBVRE | World leader pretend | Thu Dec 26 1991 18:32 | 5 |
| In My Humble Opinion.
HTH!
Mark.
|
| 1116.11 | Yep... hang 'em | BTOVT::MORONG | | Fri Dec 27 1991 10:14 | 17 |
| Don't get me wrong, I'm *very* happy that they nailed the
guy. I just wasn't aware that the intent to take a deer il-
legally was considered poaching. A quick check of the dic-
tionary shows:
poach - To tresspass on another's property in order to
take fish or game.
- To take (fih or game) in a forbidden area.
I guess by the first definition, he certainly was guilty
of poaching ("...in order to take...", not "..and taking...").
Either way, I'm glad they nailed him!!! Its nice to see the
system work. I also agree that I would love to see this
practice (catching poachers by using decoys) used more often.
Its a shame that it is not done anymore.
-Ron-
|
| 1116.12 | intent plus attempt | SA1794::CHARBONND | Only Nixon can go to China. | Fri Dec 27 1991 11:01 | 7 |
| re.11 He shot at a deer illegally, with intent to poach. Whether the
deer was real or not is irrelevant. He used a real gun with real
bullets. I think the combination of intent plus the actual shots
fired adds up to poaching.
Suppose a warden saw a guy shoot at a deer out of season, but the guy
missed the deer. Is that grounds for arrest? I sure do think so.
|
| 1116.13 | POACHING YES!!!! | MUTT::HAMRICK | The Great White Rabbit ... | Fri Dec 27 1991 12:46 | 8 |
| Decoys are still used here in south Texas and I for 1 am glad that they
are. I have always been an advocate of the "spirit of the law" not the
"technicality of the law" theory. In my opinion he was guilty and I
have not heard of any cases here that the guy got off because of a
technicality. If you have a light and a firearm in the vehicle here you
are poaching. It makes no difference if you shoot or not.
Harvey
|
| 1116.14 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | A Day at the Races | Mon Dec 30 1991 10:51 | 4 |
| > Who was the judge who refused to 'buy' the technicality? That guy
> should be on the Supreme Court, IMHO.
It was the Vermont State Supreme Court. Looks like you get your wish. :-)
|
| 1116.15 | | SA1794::CHARBONND | Only Nixon can go to China. | Mon Dec 30 1991 15:10 | 1 |
| Thanx, Doctah, and a Merry Christmas to you, too ;-)
|
| 1116.16 | Poacher dies of heart attack | WLDWST::MANN_M | Ski on,rope in hand - HIT IT! | Fri Jan 10 1992 09:13 | 8 |
| Saw this in the San Jose Mercury News yesterday:
The poacher suffered a fatal heart attack. The family is blaming the fish
and game dept., because, and get this, they caused him to stress out to the
max!! (he was 29 yrs old) However, an autopsy did reveal that this man
had a severe heart condition and was a heart attack waiting to happen.
Mike
|
| 1116.17 | How??? | XCUSME::MALONE | the melon man | Fri Jan 10 1992 14:56 | 3 |
| How did they get him to be so stress? Was he caught Poaching?
|
| 1116.18 | What if.... | CSC32::J_HENSON | TP, or not TP? | Fri Jan 10 1992 18:18 | 10 |
| Regarding the poacher's family blaming the Fish and Game Department.
If this were to hold up (only in America), then wouldn't this set a
precedent whereby any criminal could blame (read sue) any law enforcement
agency for causing them stress?
What a concept. Think I'll sue Digital's customer base for causing
me undue stress. -;)
Jerry
|
| 1116.19 | I think he won too! | EMDS::PETERSON | | Mon Jan 13 1992 11:19 | 4 |
|
Well, there was that case(from Texas? Cal.?) a few years back
where an inmate, attempting escape from a jail/prison fell off the
fence he was scaling, broke his leg, and sued the state.
|
| 1116.20 | You be the JUDGE... | TRACTR::MALONE | the melon man | Wed Jan 15 1992 01:05 | 18 |
| There's alot of that going around. I think it was 20/20 I was watching
and they were doing a peice on 3 wheeled atc's where alot of people
were getting hurt on them when there were riding double. This one case
where this guy and girl were riding and the bike they were riding
tipped over, of course they were traveling at the speed of sound, and I
thinkshe ended up not being able to walk for the rest of her life. I do
feel bad that she is going to be like this for the rest of her life,
but on the gas tank of the bikewas a sticker saying something to the
affect, "NO PASSAGE'S ALLOWED" or something like that. They ended up sueing
Honda I beleive and winning. Now they don't even make or sell 3 wheel
atc's any more because of how dangous they really are.
But who's fault is it really??? Is ti that girl who got on or is it
the driver who let her get on???
dan
|
| 1116.21 | | SA1794::TENEROWICZT | | Thu Jan 16 1992 13:27 | 15 |
|
I guess it's honda's fault for selling the bike to the guy who would
let a girl get one even though there was a sticker saying not to
allow passengers. I guess it was the honda salesman's fault for not
asking the guy if he spoke a second language.
" hi sir, want to by this... YES!! great. Oh by the way, you don't
speak ASSHOLE by any chance? We can't sell to people who speak that
language".
Pretty soon they'll sue you for selling the item and or sue you for
refusing to sell you the item. WHAT'S EVER HAPPENED TO PERSONAL
RESPONSIBILITY?
Tom
|