The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting American Big Game Hunting NC Warden Kills HunterGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| NC Warden Kills Hunter | Login/Join |
One of Us |
Hey Doc, What makes you think that one side of the story wont be the truth? God Bless, Louis | |||
|
one of us |
Nothing at all. What makes you think I think that? Any side of any story can be 100% accurate. Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns | |||
|
| One of Us |
This did. [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. | |||
|
One of Us |
Second thoughts maybe. However, he went home to his family. The scenario may have been different for his loved ones if he had let the hunter get the drop on him. If any armed officer from any agency comes to my front door, announces himself, and I threaten to do bodily harm to him when I open the door, I run a very serious risk of being shot when I open the door. That's my friends is the way it works. Again, indeed time will tell. | |||
|
| one of us |
I see. Yes, that could be interpreted that way. I'll tackle it in terms of universal acceptance.....I don't think all listeners will accept one side of the story as 100% true in this situation because it involves the shooting and killing of a person, regardless of whether or not the gw does in fact tell a 100% accurate story. And he may very well indeed be doing just that. But I won't be convinced that every person who hears that story will say to themselves, "oh, if the gw said it, it must be true." (the deceased man's family for instance). If the hunter was your father, would you accept the gw's story as 100% true whether it really was or not? Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns | |||
|
one of us |
Doc,I think the Game Wardens intent that sad day,was to write Mr Clyde Coffey a ticket for illegally baiting turkeys. You continue to infer otherwise.  why?****************************************************************** SI VIS PACEM PARA BELLUM *********** | |||
|
one of us |
Doc, these two statements came from the same source, at the same time, in the same post. Why do you have no problem accepting the first, but continue to reject the second?
NO COMPROMISE !!! "YOU MUST NEVER BE AFRAID TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT! EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO DO IT ALONE!" | |||
|
| one of us |
Please show me one post where I inferred the gw's INTENT was to do anything other than cite the hunter who was hunting illegally. Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns | |||
|
| one of us |
"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." So your Your Implying the GW in this case is guilty of some wrongdoing--All these other LEOs say they would have handled it differently,so this guy must have done something wrong.That is what I read you to say. ****************************************************************** SI VIS PACEM PARA BELLUM *********** | |||
|
| one of us |
Your first post was regarding "intent." Your reply to me is regarding implication. There's a difference. Nowhere did I mention the NC gw's "intent." Nowhere did I imply he was guilty. The only thing I have written is that I think he made the wrong choice the moment after he was threatened by someone in a tree. I didn't imply anything about the NC game warden being guilty of anything at any time. I posted what was stated to me by local gws. If asking another individual what they think they would do in a particular circumstance with the same information we have here and they say that would have handled it differently, that doesn't mean they are correct either. It simply means that they would do it differently and that is it. When I related these statements to the forum, I didn't imply anything other than other LEOs stated that based on what has been told in this story, they would have chosen alternative actions. If you take it to mean that I implied anything other than that, you are simply mistaken. I simply offered additional information. Your interpretation of what another gw stated is what seems to have led you to believe the NC warden is guilty of something, not any implication by me. If I felt that way, I would have stated it exactly like that: "2 other game wardens who have the same information as me stated that they would have handled the NC situation differently, therefore, the NC gw is lying and guilty." Did you miss this:
and this:
and this:
I'm confident that the only thing I have personally implied by posting the statements of the gws is that my personal view is not extraordinary. Guilt is something to be determined by a grand jury, not me. Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns | |||
|
| one of us |
Wingnut, which 2 quotes are your referring to? The ones by me or the 2 after your question? Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns | |||
|
| one of us |
Wingnut, if you are referring to my acceptance of the first quote to be true and a rejection of the second, then I will state that I do not reject the second if that is indeed what actually happened. My point has been that the actions taken in the second statement could have been avoided. Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns | |||
|
| one of us |
You said that the officer should have backed away a safe distance, keeping the violator in sight until back-up arrived. It appears that he did, but when faced with reasoning from people who have actually "been there", you still say-
I think you are telling the truth there, no matter the outcome of the investigation. You will remain convinced that the officer should have just walked away. You are wrong, but you will never accept that. I guess the Navy Seals shouldn't have taken out the pirates off the coast of Somailia, either, huh? They had plenty of backup, they should have written a citation and just floated it to them in a bottle. That would REALLY get their attention and cause then to release their hostage!! Grow up, Doc. This is the real world. A law enforcement officer who took your line would soon be looking for another job. Or he'd be dead. NO COMPROMISE !!! "YOU MUST NEVER BE AFRAID TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT! EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO DO IT ALONE!" | |||
|
One of Us |
The sum total of all these postings is sadly, speculation, & you're all biting each others ears off! we all have to cool off a little, & wait a while, only two guys know what really went off that day,& one of them is dead, so all this chewin out your fellow posters is getting no one any where's.  | |||
|
| one of us |
We must have read different stories or i missed the part where the gw stated he backed away while the hunter was STILL IN THE TREE, AND CALLED FOR BACKUP. So, if that happened, then I agree with you, the gw would be justified in defending himself if the hunter got down and pursued him after he had been backing away.
No sir. You are wrong but cannot accept that there may have been an alternate action available just because one individual (gw) says it is so. You are the one who needs to grow up. This is damned amusing...you nor I were there but you are first to say I am wrong. What a truly remarkable conclusion. Please tell me WTF the navy seals have to do with a shooting in NC? Not even in the same equation, but you keep reaching there fella. Hardly, he and the hunter would be alive. You just can't accept that there is a possibility that back up may have been available but since the gw didn't bother to do that we'll never know. If your brain just cannot put that circuit together, then, I can see the extent of your critical thinking ability. Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns | |||
|
| one of us |
We must have read different stories or i missed the part where the gw stated he backed away while the hunter was STILL IN THE TREE, AND CALLED FOR BACKUP. So, if that happened, then I agree with you, the gw would be justified in defending himself if the hunter got down and pursued him after he had been backing away.
No sir. You are wrong but cannot accept that there may have been an alternate action available just because one individual (gw) says it is so. You are the one who needs to grow up. This is damned amusing...you nor I were there but you are first to say I am wrong. What a truly remarkable conclusion. Please tell me WTF the navy seals have to do with a shooting in NC? Not even in the same equation, but you keep reaching there fella.
Another truly remarkable conclusion, especially in light of the fact that TWO Ohio gws stated they would do it differently. I guess they're not livin in the real world either huh? You just can't accept that there is a possibility that back up may have been available but since the gw didn't bother to do that we'll never know. If your brain just cannot put that circuit together, then, I can see the extent of your critical thinking ability. I am so perplexed here. 2 individuals read the same story (you and me), yet you CONCLUDE that I am wrong. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say we just disagree? And let's dispense with the personal words such as telling each other to "grow up." It is obvious we have different views specific to the story at hand, so it is appropriate to say that neither of us is wrong or right. Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns | |||
|
| one of us |
No,It's probably 20 individuals,and 19 see it this way, and you see it YOUR way. I still say you are implying,or infering,that the game warden is at fault WITH OUT KNOWING THE FACTS,which I think is wrong. ****************************************************************** SI VIS PACEM PARA BELLUM *********** | |||
|
| one of us |
No, make that 18 that see it your way.......a man is dead for probably baiting turkeys, hardly a capital offense......whether he made it impossible for the warden to back off WHETHER HE WOULD HAVE LOST FACE OR NOT is another question......the idea that you have to arrest a man, regardless of cost, for a misdemeanor is just plain stupid...... xxxxxxxxxx When considering US based operations of guides/outfitters, check and see if they are NRA members. If not, why support someone who doesn't support us? Consider spending your money elsewhere. NEVER, EVER book a hunt with BLAIR WORLDWIDE HUNTING or JEFF BLAIR. I have come to understand that in hunting, the goal is not the goal but the process. | |||
|
| one of us |
That is your prerogative. AND YOU AND SEVERAL OTHERS ARE IMPLYING/INFERING THAT THE GW IS NOT AT FAULT W/O KNOWING ALL THE FACTS, WHICH I THINK IS WRONG. I can't help what you think despite my repeated explanation of my thinking. Why don't you practice what you're preachin? How is it you can be forming an opinion without knowing all the facts either and you guys are "right?" I'll tell you how that flawed logic keeps this thread going, b/c you are also forming your opinion BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE READ! Which is absolutely no different than what I've done. The difference is I'm being objective and many of you are taking the story at face value w/o realizing or even accepting the fact that alternative actions could have been taken. Now why don't you tell me how you and rest are going to reconcile that double standard? I can't wait to read the response. IT'S THE SAME THING, you just don't get that do you? Seems like the lot, save a few, are blind to the POSSIBILITES that could have occurred where the old hunter could still be alive and charged for every violation. Are we to believe that a full investigation could not have been done hours later or even start the next day? Give me a break. Perhaps you should also chew on this....there's a difference b/w "KNOWING" THE FACTS AND HEARING THE FACTS. The gw may very well "tell" the truth but none of us will ever know what the truth is, only what we hear. Then it is up to us to believe it, just like you don't believe what I'm telling you here. When all is said and done, if the gw's story posted here is how it is played out, then of course I'm standing by my position in that he should have taken the SAFE route and put some distance b/w himself and the hunter WHEN THE THREAT WAS MADE. It's fine with me if you want to side with the rest and be a hypocrit by forming a "the gw is right" opinion w/o "knowing the facts." You are just as wrong in doing so, and I still say I'm right that the GW COULD HAVE BACKED OFF based on what I read. And b/c he didn't, then I say he made the wrong decision at that moment and a life could still be here. Now, a final thought....if the story were to change, moreso in favor of the gw, once the investigation is complete, does that make the gw suspicious b/c the story changed??? If the "facts" are revealed and the story is basically repeated as it here on AR, will you still believe that it was IMPOSSIBLE for the gw to retreat for safety sake while the hunter was still in the tree making a threat? Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns | |||
|
one of us |
Obviously those of you at odds have not make a dent in the thinking of the opposite view. And nothing has changed since page one. The arguments are the same; absolutely nothing new has been presented. And, unfortunately, nothing will change the outcome. In short, this has amounted to nothing but  .Bobby Μολὼν λαβέ The most important thing in life is not what we do but how and why we do it. - Nana Mouskouri | |||
|
| one of us |
| |||
|
| One of Us |
pretty good shot, I would at elast agree to that. Rich Buff Killer | |||
|
| One of Us |
I'm a bit late to join the fray but 2 things stand out: 1) What do they mean he didn't confuse him with an animal? Are GWs out shooting dangerous animals in NC often? 2) He was on the man's property, the old man took offense and told him to shove it. NOW, I'm assuming he knew the guy and where he lived....why not just leave and come back to give himhis TICKET? Or was a death sentence forthcoming for baiting on his own land? This is BS.....I don't need anymore facts....it's obvious that the old guy felt no one had jurisdiction over his land but him....GW should have left. | |||
|
| one of us |
The Law aplies to you even if you are on your own land. Law enforcement is not paid to "come back later". If you do the crime, be preared to do the time. DOUBLE RIFLE SHOOTERS SOCIETY | |||
|
One of Us |
Why did they have to go and do that, if all was done "by the book" this merely gets people more suspicious. I suppose though short of every cop in America packing a helmet cam there is no way most will be truly ever satisfied. The main vice of capitalism is the uneven distribution of prosperity. The main vice of socialism is the even distribution of misery. -- Winston Churchill | |||
|
| One of Us |
What a load of crap......he wasn't holding hostages......he was turkey hunting by himself, ON HIS OWN LAND! The warden needed to escalate the situation to the point where he needed to kill a 76 year old guy hunting on his own property? NFW! | |||
|
One of Us |
Yeah, what he said. ______________________ Hunting: I'd kill to participate. | |||
|
| one of us |
The botton line IS, IF, you are breaking the LAW, and threaten a Law Enforcement Officer with Deadly Force, then YOU should EXPECT to be KILLED. Also, IF you are not "even" breaking the LAW, and threaten a Law Enforcement Officer, with Deadly Force, then YOU should EXPECT TO BE KILLED. ALSO if you threaten ANY Citizen with Deadly Force, and are not in the right, then YOU should EXPECT TO BE KILLED. IF you are a Citizen, and in the right, and confronted by Law Enforcement, if you follow their instructions, you will NOT be killed, and ALL will be figured out... AT least as things are NOW. DOUBLE RIFLE SHOOTERS SOCIETY | |||
|
| One of Us |
You guys in New England wouldn't last long down here. Threaten to shoot someone in this part of the world, LEO or not, and you will very likely get your ass shot off. A Texas Game Warden in performance of his duty does not "come back tomorrow", and he does not walk away and bring the ticket to your house. He takes care of business then and there. It's what we expect him to do, and he has our respect for doing it. Bottom line is that if you step in it, be prepared for the consequences. | |||
|
| one of us |
There are some things I don't understand here. If someone threatens to shoot someone else,what difference does it make that the guy doing the threatening was 76 years old? We are talking about shooting here, not hitting someone. A 76 year old can pull a trigger just as easily as a 15 year old, or a 36 year old. What difference does it make that the person is hunting on his own land. Does the law not apply? Peter. Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright, that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong; | |||
|
One of Us |
Don't you just love these new members that show up with all this incredable knowledge about everything. This topic has been hashed/rehashed and is now being hashed again. It does not matter if ir was his own land or not, does not matter how old or young he was, does nit really matter if what he was doing was legal or illegal. If the guy made fight at an ARMED LEO, Game Warden/County Sheriff/State Trooper, whatever, it don't matter, he took his life in his own hands. I am plenty hot headed, but I know that no matter where I am at, my own property or any one else's, if a Law Enforcement Officer instructs me to put down my fire arm, what ever his/her reason, I am going to comply, because it will be a lot better for me, if I am alive and filing charges against that person, than laying in a box in the ground while a bunch of geniuses try to determine who was in the wrong. The real story, as Doc has stated many times will never be known. Even the rocks don't last forever. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Exactly NE 450 No2.. Great post.. That the old bastard was on his own land is of no consequence in the matter. He threatened an LEO in a deadly or grievous manner, and the Officer applied what he deemed was the correct amount of force necessary to negate those said actions. Some of you gents need to read up a bit on Local/State and Fed rules of engagement before commenting on this.. You're just making yourselves look as stupid as you sound. | |||
|
| One of Us |
You TX boys think awful highly of yourselves I see...... I stand by my statement.....the LEO escalated the situation....period. Y'all seem to think the old man was one of the drug-running chicanos or katrina fugees that live amongst you. What was he going to do with him once he came down from the tree? Give him a lecture? Or just hand him his ticket? New member or not, I see things pretty clearly.....some of y'all ain't too smart down there, huh? | |||
|
| One of Us |
Hunter's daughter speaks out. Says her Dad's gun hadn't been fired and he was hard of hearing. http://www.myfox8.com/wghp-hun...0412,0,4986126.story | |||
|
| one of us |
 I've only had military and NRA handgun training, so North Carolina warden training might be a lot different. I was taught to always fire at least 2 shots--called a double tap. Does that shed any light on the situation since ol' Clyde was shot once through the heart. Although I suppose warden Minton could have plum missed with his other shot. | |||
|
One of Us |
I am not keeping track, but when I think about all the stupid things I have read on these boards this is among the top. If a person is new to the board it doesn't mean they are new to life, firearms, hunting, law enforcement, and anything else it just means they are new to this board. If Valerius Geist, Bill Jordan, Elmer Keith, Jack OConnor, or anyone else well known for anything in the hunting, shooting, wildlife world joined this board tommorow his first post would still be his first post. 60,000 post doesn't make you an expert, and 1 post dosn't make you an idiot. There is no university giving out degrees based on how many post you have on AR. What is even dumber than that is judging someone by how many post they have, or when they post how many post they lost in the 2000 upgrade. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Crazy horse by your logic I have 4000 post and you have 1000 post. So I am four times smarter than you, probably not. What it means is that I have wasted four times as much of my life typing on this website. | |||
|
One of Us |
COOL The link you posted to that video is a waste of time and completely irrelevant to this case. That video is the typical BS we now expect from our media, there is not one substantiated fact in that little episode just "hurt feelings" the crap that our wonderful media just loves to dish out to us under the guise of "news". This entire thread is rediculous, spiteful and pointless. D99 I agree with you 100%, who says you have to have big "AR" numbers to know anything? I had a life even before I started posting here! | |||
|
| One of Us |
and is everyone assuming "just" because minton is a leo, "he" is telling the truth? while he sneaks up on dastardly turkey baiters and shoots them dead..... weeks later this still STINKS (only 290 posts and not from texas) | |||
|
| One of Us |
Okay, care to explain as to just exactly how you know that the LEO escalated the situation????? Are you going to be the surprise witness for the defense? Just exactly where you standing when the officer fired the shot? You are saying that you were there and a witness to the whole thing aren't you? Am I wrong in that estimation????? Also, just because I believe, as does Doc, that regardless of who was at fault the real story will never come out. The only difference I can see between what Doc is saying and what I think is as to whom messed up. Now what makes you think your do smart and everyone else is so dumb. Also, please point out from any of my posts where I made any reference about,
I don't think you can do that, because I never sid anything like that. I may have made some comment about older men sometimes being more prone to be confrontational, especially if they think they are in the right, and I have know several of those guys. Now is my saying that if an LEO told me to put down my firearm and come down out of my stand and my being more than willing to cooperate, is that makes you think I am so stupid, and is it just me that you think is stupid or Texans in general? Tell us more about your vast knowledge of the incident being talked about. Even the rocks don't last forever. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia