Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Officer shoots, kills 76-year-old hunter

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Twin Falls, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    119

    Post imported post

    "State wildlife officials say a veteran officer shot and killed a hunter in self-defense after a confrontation in northwestern North Carolina."

    "His daughter told WXII-TV in Winston-Salem she doubted the officer's story, and that her father was shot on his own land.."

    http://www.charlotteobserver.com/loc...ry/661448.html

    I ran across this on a hunting site. Obviously not enough info to make a judgement, but I was curious how the folks here would view it. The people on the hunting site seemed to be on the officer's side. I'm a little bothered that the guy got shot while hunting his own ground.


  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    Deleted by moderator known troll.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Gloucester, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    Not enough details to really understand what took place. It could go either way.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    Deleted by moderator known troll.

  5. #5
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    Hmm, that is the least informative story I've seen in a while. Not enough information to know, but I have to wonder whya game warden was on this guy's property and got involved in a confrontation, then felt justified in shooting this guy.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post imported post

    Click on the More Information button for the rest of the story, if you didn't. Takes you to http://www.wxii12.com/news/19168167/detail.htmlwithout the no-information cover page.

    "According to North Carolina law, wildlife officers are allowed on private property for wildlife-related investigations" Does normal patrol count as an investigation?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Gloucester, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    So to investigate, means needing reasonable suspicion, correct? They can't just go on private property and start bugging hunters simply because they feel like it, can they?

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    Deleted by moderator known troll.


  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hickory, NC, ,
    Posts
    1,025

    Post imported post

    Pagan, they pretty much can come on private property. Particularly during seasons if they are checking on game related issue. Whether this is official or not I'm not sure. But when our dove field gets checked it's by 6-8 wardens. They even circle behind the field and coordinate it to come in all sides at once. One of our local papers says it was for suspicion of baiting turkeys. NC allows deer baiting, but not for turkeys.

    Per NC Wildlife Commission, it is illegal to...

    Take wild turkeys from an area in which bait has been placed.(An area is considered baited until 10 days after the bait has been consumed or otherwise removed.)

    Here is the article from a local paper.


    We also have to keep in mind that the guy was armed as it was turkey season. Unlike when we carry in a holster, it's harder to know whay someone will do with a weapon that is, for lack of a better word, brandished. I usually open the action on my shotgun when I know they are there, or sling my rifle during deer season. I hope it was not a mistake. But I also don't expect an officer to take a bullet before acting if the situation is heading in that direction.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    Deleted by moderator known troll.

  11. #11
    Regular Member riverrat10k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    on a rock in the james river
    Posts
    1,453

    Post imported post

    Seems game wardens can enter private property without a warrant.

    My land is posted with "No Tresspassing. Danger Area. Live ammunition and hazardous conditions."

    Not a good idea to be downrange during hunting season in VA.
    Remember Peter Nap and Skidmark. Do them proud. Be active. Be well informed. ALL rights matter.

    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when you may have to back up your acts with your life."

    --Robert A. Heinlein

    Hey NSA! *&$# you. Record this--- MOLON LABE!

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    MousePrifeII wrote:
    Deleted by moderator known troll.
    What the hell is this ? :?

  13. #13
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964

    Post imported post

    Dustin wrote:
    MousePrifeII wrote:
    Deleted by moderator known troll.
    What the hell is this ? :?
    That troll is an ass. Moderator is doing the right thing.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    466

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    Dustin wrote:
    MousePrifeII wrote:
    Deleted by moderator known troll.
    What the hell is this ? :?
    That troll is an ass. Moderator is doing the right thing.
    Yeah, well there's a few more here that need to be dumped too.....

  15. #15
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    Apparently it's only the ones who speak out against the police that need to be banned, the rest can stay and cause as much trouble as they wish.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    Dustin wrote:
    MousePrifeII wrote:
    Deleted by moderator known troll.
    What the hell is this ? :?
    That troll is an ass. Moderator is doing the right thing.
    Then why not just ban him?

  17. #17
    Regular Member CrossFire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Irving, Texas, USA
    Posts
    408

    Post imported post

    Dustin wrote:
    Thundar wrote:
    Dustin wrote:
    MousePrifeII wrote:
    Deleted by moderator known troll.
    What the hell is this ? :?
    That troll is an ass. Moderator is doing the right thing.
    Then why not just ban him?
    I agree why not ban him and get it over with?

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    CrossFire wrote:
    Dustin wrote:
    Thundar wrote:
    Dustin wrote:
    MousePrifeII wrote:
    Deleted by moderator known troll.
    What the hell is this?
    That troll is an ass. Moderator is doing the right thing.
    Then why not just ban him?
    I agree why not ban him and get it over with?
    MousePrifeIII would immediately appear. Apparently mywowbb software requires manual banning of a lusername and will not ban by IP. And approval of a new username is automatic.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Florida, USA
    Posts
    54

    Post imported post

    NightOwl wrote:
    "According to North Carolina law, wildlife officers are allowed on private property for wildlife-related investigations"Â* Does normal patrol count as an investigation?
    [/quote]

    I didn't realize that North Carolina law trumped the 4th amendment, without a warrant..

    Do you want to provide a link so someone in North Carolina has status to file state and federal lawsuits.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran T Dubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Va, ,
    Posts
    892

    Post imported post

    marrandy wrote:
    NightOwl wrote:
    "According to North Carolina law, wildlife officers are allowed on private property for wildlife-related investigations" Does normal patrol count as an investigation?

    I didn't realize that North Carolina law trumped the 4th amendment, without a warrant..

    Do you want to provide a link so someone in North Carolina has status to file state and federal lawsuits.[/quote]




    I have heard a lot of different stories of game wardens regularly trumping the 4th amendment. It doesn't make it right, but no one has challenged them yet.
    "These are the shock troops (opencarry.org) of the gun lobby. And, they are not going away."
    Ceasefire NJ Director Brian Miller, NJ.com, August 20, 2009

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    T Dubya wrote:
    marrandy wrote:
    NightOwl wrote:
    "According to North Carolina law, wildlife officers are allowed on private property for wildlife-related investigations" Does normal patrol count as an investigation?


    I didn't realize that North Carolina law trumped the 4th amendment, without a warrant..

    Do you want to provide a link so someone in North Carolina has status to file state and federal lawsuits.
    I have heard a lot of different stories of game wardens regularly trumping the 4th amendment. It doesn't make it right, but no one has challenged them yet.
    For whatever it is worth, but I think this would cover it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_fields_doctrine






    The open fields doctrine is a U.S. legal doctrine created judicially for purposes of evaluating claims of an unreasonable search by the government in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states:


    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    The open fields doctrine was first articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hester v. United States,[1][/suP] which stated that “the special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their ‘persons, houses, papers, and effects,’ is not extended to the open fields."[2][/suP] This opinion appears to be decided on the basis that "open fields are not a "constitutionally protected area" because they cannot be construed as "persons, houses, papers, [or] effects."

    This method of reasoning gave way with the arrival of the landmark case Katz v. U.S.,[3][/suP] which established a two-part test for what constitutes a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The relevant criteria are "first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable'."[4][/suP] Under this new analysis of the Fourth Amendment, a search of an object or area where a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy is, in a legal sense, not a search at all. That search, therefore, does not trigger the protections of the Fourth Amendment.

    In Oliver v. United States[5][/suP], the Supreme Court held that a privacy expectation regarding an open field is unreasonable:


    …open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance. There is no societal interest in protecting the privacy of those activities, such as the cultivation of crops, that occur in open fields. [6][/suP]
    Courts have continuously held that entry into an open field—whether trespass or not—is not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. No matter what steps a person takes, he or she cannot create a reasonable privacy expectation in an open field, because it is an area incapable of supporting an expectation of privacy as a matter of constitutional law. In situations where the police allege that what was searched was an open field, this has the practical effect of shifting the argument from whether any given expectation of privacy is reasonable, to whether the given place is actually an open field or some other type of area like curtilage. This is because a person can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in areas classed as such.
    [/quote]


  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Florida, USA
    Posts
    54

    Post imported post

    Well thank you.

    Another example of 20th century judicial interference, marginalizing the constitution and bill of rights.

    So your land is no longer private property, as far as the Government is concerned, and their agents can come onto your land and snoop without a search warrant, without fear of lawsuits. How nice.

    <RANT

    Along with the income tax (that will only affect the top 5% for a few years - we know how that turned out) and the thousands of other minor changes, exceptions and exemptions over the past 100 years by Congress and the unelected Supreme Court Judges, our Constitution and Bill of Rights has more holes than Swiss cheese.

    No wonder the respect for Congress, The Government and the Courts, is at such a low level.

    Now we have the Liberal Democrats trying to succeed where the USSR & China failed by destroying the USA and capitalism by expanding big Government, spending trillions of dollars, the interest alone we can't afford, let alone the capital.

    Socialist America will just become another 'also ran' country like any of the European countries. Achieving little. Unable to afford a strong military or have aircraft carriers, unable to do moon missions, do space launches independently, or anything else 'great' that you can think of.

    The little the Europeans can do is by working together even with their 500 million population compared to the USA's 300 million and using Russia, China and India rocket technology.

    The reason the USA has done so well in comparison, is the independence, capitalism and NOT being 'bogged down' by excessive rules, excessive Government and excessive spending. Government only get's involved when private enterprise can't justify making it work (which should start raising major Red flags anyway).

    What the Government should do is pay private enterprise do projects as Government is so wasteful and apathetic, you can add 30% + to any Government project as wasted tax payers money.


    Its ALL about control.

    Spending other peoples money (isn't nice how the Government slips their hand in your pocket and steals your money with impunity).

    At this point in time, I don't trust either party as they have both contributed, over the past 100 years to major losses of our freedoms, Bill by Bill, inch by inch.

    If only ALL the minor parties could get together under the banner of someone like the Libertarians (http://www.lp.org), they could pull enough politicians from both the Dems and the Republicans to actually make a difference and win and turn this country back to its roots of individual responsibility, freedom and minimal government.

    </RANT

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    32

    Post imported post

    PT111's supports the research on this topic I did a few years back as well. Generally speaking the courts only require a warrant for:
    1) Your house
    2) Outbuildings that are closed.
    3) Your immediate yard.

    They can generally snoop around the woods, hayfield behind your house and patrol the ponds/rivers looking for illegal fishers/hunters.

    With that said, there are some states that limit their ability to do this. Such as property that is posted no hunting, as long as they have no reason to believe that people (including the land owner) are hunting the property they can't enter. This varies from state to state though, the overwhelming majority don't restrict it though.

    Keep in mind to that this isn't limited to just hunting issues, the local police might canvas the field behind your house looking for evidence to get a warrant in order to enter/search you're house on other issues as well.

    I don't agree with this practice, however there is case law going back a ew hundred years to support it, it is not a new development.


    Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice. The above is just what I recall coming away with after researching this topic a few years back.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •