Interesting Legal Ruling

   / Interesting Legal Ruling #2  
Well, on one hand good for him to go that far to protect his rights under the constitution. But, it seems pretty clear to me he was part of the poaching. That is not good.

MoKelly
 
   / Interesting Legal Ruling #3  
MoKelly said:
Well, on one hand good for him to go that far to protect his rights under the constitution. But, it seems pretty clear to me he was part of the poaching. That is not good.

MoKelly
Click to expand...
.
Were they poaching or shooting them for crop damage.
 
   / Interesting Legal Ruling #4  
   / Interesting Legal Ruling #5  
It's important that the right to not incriminate oneself is protected I suppose even if poachers go unpunished.

I would think there are other ways, such as a dead deer is probable cause to investigate--including ballistic tests of all weapons that could reasonably be involved.
 
   / Interesting Legal Ruling #6  
If they're damaging his crops, it's not poaching to kill them.
 
   / Interesting Legal Ruling #7  
Pa has a rule if you have so many acres and farm for a living, you are permitted to take so many deer any time of the year.
I think what made this one a little different is he was not at the kill site and family members had harvested the deer. This raised doubt on the warden, who then pushed the issue further.

I believe there is more to the story, and the owner may have been covering for the family members. But that's my opinion.

If that was the case, the family member would have been fined, but the father said he was there, which in turn, likely upset the warden.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
 

Footer Links 1

Top