Well Doc, I am gonna eake a page out of your book on this part of the story.

Unless this GW was trying to do some undercover work, I seriouisly do not believe he would have been in camo.

The fact remains, something happened in those NC woods that day that should not have, regardless of who did what, it should not have ended the way it did. JMO.

aahhhh.... the story developes
and it seems to lend credit to the earlier suspicions that "something don't sound right"
as expressed by several posts.

Quote from Doc - "I ran this by a few officer friends of mine, including a game warden here in Ohio. All claimed that they'd back away and write a citation and call for back up."

Then your "few officer friends" damn sure never worked Game and Fish enforcement, and your "game warden" never worked in the rural south! Backup is generally in the NEXT COUNTY!

" In that respect, I still believe a reasonable move would be to back up, literally, and call for more officers. "

" it is the gw responsibility to control the situation, even if it means temporarily leaving "

HOW THE HELL IS LEAVING CONTROLLING THE SITUATION??

Another from Doc- " It is simple....if the gw was threatened while the hunter was in the tree, and he specifically stated, "if I get down from this tree, I will kill you" then the gw could have made some distance and called for backup. "

" Why don't you tell me why the gw couldn't have walked away and called for back up and then reapproach the alleged illegal hunter with one or to more LEOs? Why does this simple task require 'research?' "

" What's the big deal about backing away, literally? "


What makes you think that a man who would make a threat to shoot one officer would not do the same to multiple officers?

I'll elaborate on DTala's answer-

The guy could climb down and leave while the officer on-scene waits for that backup. If the Officer waits by the road, so backup can FIND him, he is out of sight of the violator. If he waits in sight of the violator, and the guy tries to climb down, what does the officer do? He HAS to confront that violator. If not, the violator simply walks away. Since the officer has not been face-to-face with the violator, he obviously doesn't have his hunting license, driver's license or other ID in hand. The guy is TURKEY hunting. Is it reasonable to assume that he may have been wearing a face mask?!?!?!?

The argument regarding the violator being on his own land has no merit either. If the man has not been identified by documents or by facial recognition, how does the officer know who he is? Do you think he has personally met and knows and can remember the face AND VOICE of every single landowner in a WHOLE COUNTY , and remember EXACTLY which parcel of property is owned by each and every one of them?!?!?!

And even if he could, the article said that the guy was committing two illegal acts - hunting turkeys over bait, and hunting turkeys from an elevated stand. The officer has sworn a solemn oath to uphold the laws of his state. There are no exceptions in these laws for age or ownership of property.

One from tendrams - " Here you have 76 year old eyes which cant really make out a badge or ID from the top of a tree stand (or maybe even 10 feet away) and 76 year old ears that might not hear "

If he can't identify a man from ten feet away, he sure as hell can't tell a hen from a gobbler, or a deer from a dog. What the hell is he doing with a gun in first place?


The suggestion from onefunzr2 that the officer should have ignored his oath and allowed the guy to kill a turkey in violation of the law, simply because he was old, and /or on his own property, is simply idiotic!


SIMPLY PUT, AN OFFICER IN THE SITUATION DESCRIBED CAN NOT BACK DOWN. AS SOON AS WORD OF THIS GOT AROUND THE COUNTY, EVERY REDNECK YAHOO WOULD DO THE SAME THING. THE GW COULD NOT BACK DOWN FROM EVERY ONE OF THEM FOR THE REST OF HIS CAREER. IF HE DID, THAT CAREER WOULD BE VERY SHORT INDEED!!!

hey havn't we met before?
was it waco? or ruby ridge??
some things are not worth being "right" about

So, you're saying the violator was right to threaten an officer in the line of duty, because he thought he had the "right" to hunt contrary to established law?

Or was he NOT right to do that?

I abhor what happened in both the incidents you mention.

The Federal government had no business in either. It is my opinion that the federal officers present were there unlawfully, and unconstitutionally. The supervisors created rules of engagement for both which were contrary to the norm. The officers present were WRONG, in both instances, to escalate the force continuum. What they should have done was refuse to obey an unlawful order, and leave the area.

In the situation currently discussed, the choice to escalate, from a LAWFUL contact with an officer performing his reasonable duty, and possibly a misdemeanor ticket, to a felonious threat on an officer's life, was made by the violator.

Once he made a threat against the officer's life, he was in the wrong. PERIOD. The officer had no choice but to confront the threat.

quote:

Originally posted by wingnut:
HOW THE HELL IS LEAVING CONTROLLING THE SITUATION??

BY ALLOWING WHAT ACTUALLY DID HAPPEN NOT TO HAPPEN!! HE BACKS AWAY, THE THREAT IS REDUCED!! YOU GET IT???

quote:

What makes you think that a man who would make a threat to shoot one officer would not do the same to multiple officers?

STATISTICS!!! IT WOULD NO LONGER BE ONE ON ONE!! WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THE OLD MAN WOULD THREATEN MORE OFFICERS JUST BECAUSE HE THREATENED ONE?

quote:

I'll elaborate on DTala's answer-

The guy could climb down and leave while the officer on-scene waits for that backup. If the Officer waits by the road, so backup can FIND him, he is out of sight of the violator. If he waits in sight of the violator, and the guy tries to climb down, what does the officer do? He HAS to confront that violator. If not, the violator simply walks away. Since the officer has not been face-to-face with the violator, he obviously doesn't have his hunting license, driver's license or other ID in hand. The guy is TURKEY hunting. Is it reasonable to assume that he may have been wearing a face mask?!?!?!?

Speculation.

quote:

The argument regarding the violator being on his own land has no merit either.

Opinion.

quote:

And even if he could, the article said that the guy was committing two illegal acts - hunting turkeys over bait, and hunting turkeys from an elevated stand. The officer has sworn a solemn oath to uphold the laws of his state. There are no exceptions in these laws for age or ownership of property.

All officers are sworn to uphold the laws. Ever hear of a warning? Ever hear of officer discretion? Ever heard of a LEO being arrested, charged, and convicted for breaking the law?

quote:

SIMPLY PUT, AN OFFICER IN THE SITUATION DESCRIBED CAN NOT BACK DOWN.

Bullshit. You make it sound like this is a "manly" thing, and not necessarily a legal thing.

quote:

AS SOON AS WORD OF THIS GOT AROUND THE COUNTY, EVERY REDNECK YAHOO WOULD DO THE SAME THING. THE GW COULD NOT BACK DOWN FROM EVERY ONE OF THEM FOR THE REST OF HIS CAREER. IF HE DID, THAT CAREER WOULD BE VERY SHORT INDEED!!!

GO GET EM TIGER!! KILL ALL OF THEM DAMNED REDNECKED YAHOOS!!! YEHAAA!

You know after reading your post, you are absolutely right. There was no alternative. The old bastard got what was coming. Sorry for being wrong. The gw did the right thing by shooting in self defense and killing that old hunter. That old f_cker was prolly tresspassing too. I feel like a real idiot. I hope the warden is found not guilty, keeps his job, and moves on.

That old hunter in NC and the guy in this video were prolly brothers.

By the way, what opinions are there as to what would have happened if the GW was a lady? Just curious.

I am glad to see that your medication has kicked back in.

That would have been a different scenario, as it would have been if the hunter had been younger or a woman, or either party black or hispanic or south east asian.

As has been hashed/re-hashed and the re-hash being hashed out, no one really knows what happened.

The only thing that seems to be in agreement among those responding, is that it was a tragic incident.

Everything else everyone is coming up with is pure conjecture, and the real story as to what took place, will never be known.

Thanks onefunzr2, I hadn't read this report.

God Bless, Louis

quote:

He HAS to confront that violator. If not, the violator simply walks away. Since the officer has not been face-to-face with the violator, he obviously doesn't have his hunting license, driver's license or other ID in hand.

If not this, how would YOU do the job that the officer is sworn to do? Or would you just let him walk away?

quote:

WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THE OLD MAN WOULD THREATEN MORE OFFICERS JUST BECAUSE HE THREATENED ONE?

EXPERIENCE!! What makes you believe he wouldn't? Now who is speculating?

quote:

Ever hear of a warning? Ever hear of officer discretion?

I use the latter on a daily basis, the former nearly as often.

quote:

KILL ALL OF THEM DAMNED REDNECKED YAHOOS!!!

I never wrote or implied anything of the sort.
But if an officer backs down from the situation, it WILL be repeated, once word gets around. What will he do next time? Back down again? On every possible arrest situation in which the violator has heard about him previously backing down, and decides to try it again? For how long should the officer continue to back down? The remainder of the hunting season? The remainder of his career? If he did, how long do you think it would take the Fish and Game Dept. to fire him?

The gender of the officer would make no difference. The gender of the violator would make no difference, either.

I have seen the dash-cam video in the above link many times, in training sessions, in my career. All students and instructors in each class unanimously agreed that ALL the officers present screwed up royally.

If a person is approaching you, gun IN HAND, and IN THE READY POSITION, the time for talking is past. Since he was in a vehicle (engine blocks make good cover) the officer should have thrown the shifter in reverse as he dove to the floor and stomped the accelerator.

An officer on foot, in the woods, threatened by a person in a strategically superior (elevated) position, should take cover immediately if possible. If approached or aimed at by the armed person issuing the threat, he should make ONE order to drop the weapon. If that order is not obeyed, the officer MUST act to protect himself.

I'm with wingnut! +1

God Bless, Louis

quote:

Originally posted by onefunzr2:
. Perhaps ol' Clyde was belligerent. Need he die for that shortcoming? But I can certainly visualize a gung-ho Minton not backing down in any confrontation, cause the LAW was on his side.

quote:

A law enforcement official speaking on condition of anonymity said...

That's just crap! I smell coverup. There, I said it. Flame away. Denying an old man his turkey, even if hunted by illegal means, shouldn't cost him his life.

I wonder if they'll give officer Mark Minton a medal or a chest to pin it on?

I would call threatening to kill a law officer, armed with a loaded shotgun more than a little "belligerant."

LEOs make their living carrying a loaded firearm. Like it or not, when we are out in the field hunting, carrying loaded weapons, we can be perceived as a threat if we don't make every effort to make the GW comfortable. If that means unloading or at the very least stepping away from your weapon, so be it. I don't see what the big deal really is.

I have spent too many years in dicey areas overseas, and I can tell you this. With regards to the police in this country (and yes, I am going to generalize), we have it very good in the U.S. It boggles my mind that some feel the need to assume the cop is always wrong. I used to think like that -- when I was a teenager and you can bet your ass that I was probably doing something wrong to draw the attention of the police.

Let all the facts come out before drawing judgement. Keep in mind that law enforcement is a really tough job, and you don't have the luxury of having an off day without the possibility of grave repercussions.

JMHO.

quote:

Originally posted by youngoutdoors:
I'm with wingnut! +1

God Bless, Louis

ME TOO!!

But here is the ONLY dilemma in this case!!:

quote:

Originally posted by wingnut:
If approached or aimed at ....

IF IF IF IF....we don't know if what is alleged is true! It seems the warden in this case decided a human life was worth less than a turkey's! He took the challenge anyway!

I don't think many of those in this discussion are "assuming the LEO is wrong". I think a good portion of the issues being discussed relate to the reality for some that perhaps agents of the state should be held to a MUCH higher standard when it comes to deadly force. Does this put LE at a disadvantage? Yes! Is it fair? NO! Am I thankful to live in a country where quite often the police and other agents of power get raked over the coals just IN CASE they screwed up and killed a citizen? ABSOLUTELY! DAMN STRAIGHT! It keeps people honest. Dans ce pay-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral (or figuratively in this case, a GW) pour encourager les autres.

Well, I took about 10 minutes of my lunch and called Ohio DNR to discuss this situation with a gw, as my curiosity has been peaked.

1) question posed by me: If you were questioning the hunter described in this story and he stated, "if I get down from this tree, I'm going to shoot/kill you" what would you do?

Ansr: I would immediately seek cover and call dispatch for back up. However, when we go anywhere on foot, we call ahead of time so our location is known. When back up arrives is different depending on where you are. We also have sheriff deputies as back up. Safety is always priority, both mine and the hunter's. It would be unsafe to allow a situation like this to escalate.

2) Question: When you are in the field, how often are you familiar with the land, it's owners, etc.?

Ansr: Most of the time we know the owners, but sometimes not, but that doesn't mean the hunter we may find there is the landowner.

3) Question: If your life was threatened as in this case, while the hunter was in the tree, what would it take for you to hold your ground and allow him to come down and possibly own up to his threat?

Ansr: I wouldn't. As a wildlife officer, we have more training than any other officer when it comes to firearms encounters. Safety is always first. We'll see more firearm encounters during a week or 2 of deer season than many or most police officers will see in a lifetime. If my life has been threatened, I would seek cover immediately and call dispatch and explain the situation and request back up.

4) Is it a standard/rule/law/proper etiq. for a hunter to unload a firearm when approached by a gw?

Ans: No, not necessarily. In fact, during loading or unloading is when most accidents occur. We are mindful at all times when approaching hunters as to where the gun is pointed at all times. Just do whatever is asked of you by the gw. If we ask to inspect the firearm, we'll either tell you to hand it to us as is, but point bbl in safe direction, or we'll ask you to unload it. Most hunters will state whether it is loaded or not and ask if we'd like to check it loaded or unloaded and who would they like to unload it.

So, no, you do not have to unload a firearm normally.

He ultimately stated he was somewhat familiar with this incident. He also stated that with most all officer related killings, this case will likely go to a grand jury.

The other game warden I spoke with also stated that if the incident happened truthfully, according to the warden in NC, they would have considered safety first and reported the threat to dispatch immediately and called for backup. Most all threats when one on one dissipate when there are more officers.

Just FYI.

Too bad the old man didn't live and hunt in SW Ohio. Seems he'd still likely be livin.

So, wingnut, I don't know what you do for a living, but if you are a warden or some other LEO, we have gw here in Ohio that disagree with you, and of course, ever situation is a case by case scenario, but, it is obvious here that back up is common, and safety comes first in Ohio. Apparently not where you are and not in this case in NC.

Thanks Doc, for getting another states game warden's point of view. And that if a game warden calls for backup it doesn't necessarily have to be another game warden that comes to his aid from who knows how many counties away. Any police officer or sheriff could/should come running.

However, I think some of officer Minton's backers are assuming the story of Clyde threatening him to be absolute truth. That has not been proved as yet...only rumor.

quote:

Originally posted by onefunzr2:
However, I think some of officer Minton's backers are assuming the story of Clyde threatening him to be absolute truth. That has not been proved as yet...only rumor.

I believe it is referred to as innocent until proven guilty, and yes, I am more likely to take the word of a game warden over a poacher.

You armchair GWs are killing me.......

We were allowed to and did wear camoflage clothes in the field while checking hunters. Did it all the time. One just pulls the coat back and show em the uniform/badge, or just take the camo off as you approach someone who has seen you. Done both, never had a problem with it.

Backup? Your absolute lack of knowledge about the subject is a joke. Sure, you can CALL for backup....just don't hold your breath. Wait for a county deputy or worse, city officer to help you?? Not anytime soon. Another GW to the rescue?? Maybe, if you can contact one that is less than an hour away.....

Even if you get someone headed your way they may not be able to find you. You can't just say "we're at milemarker 253 on I59"....

More likely you(GW) have walked half a mile or more to reach a baited site undetected by the landowner/hunter, after hiding your truck, or worse, being dropped off on foot.

This ain't TV, and backup for most GWs is measured in hours, not minutes.

26 years on the job, I DO know what I'm talking about.

troy

All I can say is some of "you fellers" would make mighty interesting jurors - no need to wait to hear the facts, just get right to the deliberation room.

quote:

It seems the warden in this case decided a human life was worth less than a turkey's

No, the violator, who threatened the life of the officer, rather than accept a simple citation for a game violation, did that!!

quote:

would have considered safety first and reported the threat to dispatch immediately and called for backup . Most all threats when one on one dissipate when there are more officers.

Exactly! IF the officer has a radio which will work in the area. Ever tried to deal with VHF and UHF in thick woods or mountains? And IF that radio has been programmed with the frequency of other nearby law enforcement agencies. And where in there do you see that your Ohio warden says that the officer should have left the area, and come back later, as you previously said he should?

As DTala said, backup in a situation like this is a LOOONG way away. What does the officer do while waiting for them to get there? He CANNOT let a felony violator (yes felony - death threat!!) simply walk away.

Has anybody tossed the idea of "suicide by GW" into this mess?

I will concede that there is a trend where officers who are threatened likely have seconds, if that, to make decisions.

The above post is correct, which includes every single one of us by the way, we are all nothing more than armchair quarterbacks (gws) here.

DTala, you are correct. My knowledge about this is slim to none. Glad you think it is a joke.

Let me ask you this, and please be honest. How many hunters have said to you, "I'm going to kill you?"

If none, then, with all due respect, your 26 years of experience is insignificant with regards to this specific incident. If you've been in the same alleged situation, what did you do?

You obviously cannot read my posts cautiously either. My knowledge is not what was posted. I restated what was stated to me. This is twice you've managed to overshoot my posts.

Your 26 years of experience I will assume is for the same DNR. It is obvious that other states do not have the same issues as yours. I would also guess that you are correct that there have been and always will be situations where backup is simply not available.

Ohio gws have GPS with them where dispatch can always tell where they are. I specifically posted what was stated to me by Ohio gws. And I wrote it as such. I did not post anywhere that the actions that may have been taken by an Ohio gw were a blanket statement to be accepted by any and all officers in the field.

I've had countless good to excellent experiences with gws, especially the 2 that watched me shoot a big buck and helped me gut and drag it. I've had one bad experience with a young gw in WY who was simply one of the largest pricks I've ever encountered. He was a young asswipe. Likely in his first couple of years on the job.

So, by all means, continue to contort my posts since you have well demonstrated your inability to cautiously read them.

Wingnut,

quote:

No, the violator, who threatened the life of the officer, rather than accept a simple citation for a game violation, did that!!

What can I say? You wish. The hunter is dead. He made an unthinkable threat, but the gw MADE THE DECISION to stay put and see this through and killed a hunter who may have been all bark and no bite, or simply a dumb old man, or perhaps he did have every intention of following through. But the gw was the one who could have made a choice to back out. We'll never know the truth, only what a potential grand jury will decide.

I stand by my position. The gw, in my opinion, should have split and kept and eye on the guy while he was still in the tree, arrest him later or follow him once he left the tree (at a safe distance) and catch him when he wasn't holding his firearm or something.

You're not going to convince me that there were absolutely no other possible scenarios where the old man could still be around and sit out the rest of his days in jail if need be.

But you guys can keep trying. Let's see how many pages we can make this!

quote:

What can I say?

quote:

You wish.??????????

The hunter is dead. He made an unthinkable threat, but the gw MADE THE DECISION to stay put and see this through and killed a hunter who may have been all bark and no bite, or simply a dumb old man, or perhaps he did have every intention of following through. But the gw was the one who could have made a choice to back out. We'll never know the truth, only what a potential grand jury will decide.

I stand by my position. The gw, in my opinion, should have split and kept and eye on the guy while he was still in the tree ,[ HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO DO BOTH??] arrest him later or follow him once he left the tree (at a safe distance) [ make up your mind - should he have "split", or should he have kept the violator in sight and followed an armed man who had already threatened his life?)and catch him when he wasn't holding his firearm or something.

You're not going to convince me that there were absolutely no other possible scenarios where the old man could still be around and sit out the rest of his days in jail if need be.

Sure there were. The violator could have just taken the citation, rather than threatening the life of the officer. Even after making the threat, he could have put his gun down when ordered to do so. He could have not pursued the officer as he BACKED AWAY.

The officer was doing the job that the citizens of NC were paying him to do. The choices which led to this tragedy were made by the violator.

minnesota law from page 33 of the 2008 hunting booklet.

Enforcement
• DNR conservation officers and other peace officers may arrest, without
a warrant, any person detected in the actual violation of wildlife,
fish, or water laws and may enter any lands to carry out these duties.
• No person may hinder, resist, or obstruct an enforcement
officer or
authorized DNR agent in the performance
of official duties.
• A person must allow inspection in the field of firearms, licenses,
wild animals, motor vehicles, boats, or other conveyances
used while
taking or transporting wild animals.

Doc, I donj't find YOUR lack of knowledge to be a joke. Heck, I have no knowledge about brain sugery. What I find to be a joke is your continued posting of your opinions on what happened and what SHOULD of been done...with absolutely NO first hand knowledge of the incident or of doing a GWs job.

For the record I was threatened with a gun, couple of times. Had me truck rammed at 40mph by a night hunter. Even shot at onct. I survived without major injury and so did the bad guys. But not because I left the scene and ran for help. Circumstances allowed for all of us to live another day. BTW, the fella that shot at me was 70+ years old. So much for nice Mr old guy....

Unfortunately that didn't happen in NC. I'm pretty sure the GW now wishes he could of done something different, but whether that would of altered the outcome is pure conjecture on all our parts.

troy, walked the walk

quote:

Originally posted by DTala:
What I find to be a joke is your continued posting of your opinions on what happened and what SHOULD of been done...with absolutely NO first hand knowledge of the incident or of doing a GWs job.

Don't you see that what you continue to post infers that what did happen is what should have happened and you have absolutely NO first hand knowledge of the incident?

quote:

Originally posted by DTala:
Circumstances allowed for all of us to live another day.

The reality is, this is all I've been saying. It's my opinion that the probability of this is greater than 50% for the case in NC according to what we know.

You seem to keep missing that critical item in my posts as well.

You did read that my opinion is based on the story AS WE KNOW IT, didn't you? Did you read where I wrote that my opinion could very likely be different if the story AS WE KNOW IT was different?

You may continue to think my position is a joke, that is fine, but based on the story, AS TOLD AND AS WE KNOW IT, then yep, I think the old geezer could still be around.

I'll leave you with this so you can read it as a stand alone sentence:

MY OPINION IS BASED ON THE STORY A-S W-E K-N-O-W I-T.

My opinion is not based on what ACTUALLY HAPPENED b/c no one else was there.

quote:

Originally posted by wingnut:
The violator could have just taken the citation, rather than threatening the life of the officer.

I agree!

quote:

Even after making the threat, he could have put his gun down when ordered to do so.

I agree!

quote:

He could have not pursued the officer as he BACKED AWAY.

I agree! But the problem is, we don't know that he did this, do we!?

quote:

The officer was doing the job that the citizens of NC were paying him to do. The choices which led to this tragedy were made by the violator.

so you are saying the gw had NO choice and you weren't there either! BS! The warden made a choice just like the hunter.

This is funny. You guys continue to say that what happened was meant to be and as it should be but you weren't there. I continue to say that there could have been/should have been alternative actions based on the story as we know it, but somehow, regardless of the fact we're all armchairing here, you guys are "right" and I'm "wrong."

Until you see that you are doing the same thing, (except you guys are opining as if you were there)....well, I guess we'll continue to go back and forth.

quote:

Originally posted by SGraves155:
Has anybody tossed the idea of "suicide by GW" into this mess?

On the other hand, since this occurred in North Carolina, famous for speed traps and other innovative ways to generate local income, perhaps officer Minton had a quota of perps to fill that opening day and didn't have time to fool around with a 76 year old that didn't genuflect at his commands. Or, perhaps Minton was scared shitless and reacted by gunning down the old man in cold blood. Cause we all know that dead men tell no tales.

I see the 'thin blue line' is alive and well on this thread!

it still doesn't sound right,
45 mins into turkey season,on well forested
private property,sneaking around in camo....?
investigating the "possibility" of the
baiting of turkeys....

quote:

Originally posted by ravenr:
it still doesn't sound right,
45 mins into turkey season,on well forested
private property,sneaking around in camo....?
investigating the "possibility" of the
baiting of turkeys....

I would think the place had already been found out by a warden and the possibility of baiting could have been well underway in order to attract turkeys prior to the opener and encounter was already planned, not the outcome of course.

What are the chances of a gw randomly driving down a random road and randomly getting out to randomly walk in a non-specific patch of forest and just happen upon a hunter in a tree over bait? Are the odds pretty good for this?

Remember we have only the game wardens word that the old man threatened him.

doc, mr.coffey's grandson claims authoritys told him there had been nothing reported
as to why the warden was there.
others claim there was an incident where minton beat an elderly man with a flashlight
check out wsoctv.com/clyde coffey

Doc, I actually am on your side for the most part, something happened and none of us will ever know the whole story.

Could the GW have handled the situation differently, possibly, but again no one really knows.

Could the old man re-acted differently, possibly but again, no one knows.

Is the GW automatically guilty, NO, but many folks seem to believe he is.

Is the GW automatically innocent, NO, but some believe he is.

Will any of us ever know exactly what did take place, other than a 76 year old men being hauled out of the woods dead, No.

How many folks on this site are willing to wait and see and give both parties concerned in the incident the benefit of the doubt, DAMN FEW.

I'm not only willing to wait but am reserving any judgement until the truth comes out. Everything else is Speculation and Conjecture. I'm wondering how many people who commented on this thread will "man up" and apologize for some of the atrotious things they've said on this post.
One thing is certain and that is that our news media is terrible at getting the FACTS in print or on the news, I am appalled at some of the news these days and how inaccurate it is.

I am definitely not for censorship of the Fourth Estate, but their way of doing things and the methods they use need an overhaul. JMO.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Doc, I actually am on your side for the most part, something happened and none of us will ever know the whole story.

Could the GW have handled the situation differently, possibly, but again no one really knows.

Could the old man re-acted differently, possibly but again, no one knows.

Is the GW automatically guilty, NO, but many folks seem to believe he is.

Is the GW automatically innocent, NO, but some believe he is.

Will any of us ever know exactly what did take place, other than a 76 year old men being hauled out of the woods dead, No.

How many folks on this site are willing to wait and see and give both parties concerned in the incident the benefit of the doubt, DAMN FEW.

In a round about way, this is essentially what I have been saying. What continues to puzzle me is the reports that we all need to wait until the "truth comes out."

uhhh, it never will, only one side of a story, unfortunately.

Personally, I haven't seen anything in my posts that would ever warrant an apology to anyone.

quote:

Originally posted by Doc:
What continues to puzzle me is the reports that we all need to wait until the "truth comes out."

uhhh, it never will, only one side of a story, unfortunately.

Personally, I haven't seen anything in my posts that would ever warrant an apology to anyone.

So in effect, the above says the GW is a liar, regardless of what he says -- even if it IS the truth??

quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:

quote:

Originally posted by Doc:
What continues to puzzle me is the reports that we all need to wait until the "truth comes out."

uhhh, it never will, only one side of a story, unfortunately.

Personally, I haven't seen anything in my posts that would ever warrant an apology to anyone.

So in effect, the above says the GW is a liar, regardless of what he says -- even if it IS the truth??

Everything the gw states has been and will be left up to someone else to interpret as truth, half true, or not true, whether it really is or not. Under this particular circumstance, I would say it is universally accepted that if 2 parties are involved in an event, it is natural to hear both sides to the story to make a judgment on what is the WHOLE truth. It's really about a 3rd party making a decision.

You bring up the best point of all. Even if he really is 100% honest with his story, that doesn't make it believable to all and to assess facts, about the only ones I could see from what we know, is that he can prove the hunter was on the ground when shot, that there is a tree stand, and bait on the ground. Any verbal exchange b/w the two cannot be proven whether he's telling the truth or not. That is what is important at this point because he'll likely be sued, and perhaps unsuccessfully, for wrongful death.

Doc,

Grrr. I had just written a long reply and accidentally closed it before posting. I'll do it again later -- write one, that is.

quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:
Doc,

Grrr. I had just written a long reply and accidentally closed it before posting. I'll do it again later -- write one, that is.

I hate it when that happens!