quote:

Originally posted by onefunzr2:
Same situation? You mean a gung-ho warden, so hell-bent on carrying out the letter of the law that he resorts to cold blooded murder?

In that case I'll make damn sure I steer clear of Wilkes county, North Carolina.

All Police Officers take an oath to carry out the law, thats their job, those that don't are considered corrupt. Not likely this was cold blooded murder, he didn't slip into the guys house in the middle of the night and shoot him while he was sleeping.

I would suggest you stay inside your home at all times, if you think it is OK to point a shotgun at anyone and not have them shoot you, you will live a short life.

But what I suggested you should hope never happen to you was having to defend your life with deadly force and have everyone crucify you for doing so.

On a personal level, your criticism is over the top, even for the most ardent anti-governmental conspiracy theorist. Of course, maybe you truly believe that a veteran DFG warden was high fiving everyone in the court room.

But what really gets me, you think this man arrived with intent for murder, but give no explanation as to why. Are you saying the DFG warden is a sociopath, or do you have proof that there was motive behind it. Or possibly, you have issues with anyone in authority and lash out against anyone with a badge. I wonder which is the most likely considering your responses.

Been out of the country a few days so I haven't been near a computer to read the latest.

Notice that the DA (I think that's who it was...not gonna try to find it farther up the page now) said that the officer called out to the hunter and so on and finally after trying to get away, then pulled his weapon and fired one shot. He then tried to save his life.

I'm a LEO and we are trained to shoot for center mass, to stop the threat.

Seems that just what the GW did, and then the GW tried to save the suspects life.

One shot then first aid....says it all.

This was never intended, on my part, to be a bash all LE thread. If the GW's account was accurate then he acted appropriately.....that's something we'll never know.

I'd like to ask the LEOs on here one question(which I've asked 10 times in this thread already): If an officer has a pattern of inappropriate behavior documented by credible sources would that have any influence on how you see this case?

I ain't an LEO Norton, never have been, and I can only answer for myself as a Private Citizen on this one, and it is based over many years of experience here in Texas.

At one time, it was really hard to get an overbearing/gung-ho/AssHole, LEO of any kind out of their job/office, damn near impossible.

It ain't been that way in many places for several years now.

I have known of GW's being re-assigned or fired for being too heavy handed or zealous while performing their duties.

The problem is, and this is another one I have seen take place first hand, is the officers so-called Rogue behavior directed at anyone/everyone that comes with in his/her jurisdiction?

Or is it a case of one or two families or individuals in one certain part of that jurisdiction that keep complaining while no one else seems to be having any problems.

If the LEO has a Verifiable History of being too overbearing/heavy handed etc. etc. then Yes that would change my outlook on this case.

Again however, thru the experiences I have had during my hunting career, I have seen many cases where landowners and their families consistantly set up their own little codes of conduct and game laws on their property, that are not quite what the state has set forth.

Many times what has happened, is that the old/vetran GW that was over the area, knew what was going on, but because no one was complaining, turned a blind eye toward what was taking place and let things slide.

All of a sudden the old guard is gone thru retirement/promotion, whatever and a new kid takes over that does not have or know the history of how the "Good Old boy" network operated in that area and the first thing that happens, toes are stepped on and someone is hollering harrassment.

In reality, all that is happening is the newbie is simply performing their duties as they are supposed to, something the old guard had let slip away over time.

It is possible that the old man was merely running a bluff, maybe figured that he could run the GW off and then try to patch things up/set things back in order later.

This time that strategy did not work.

You had a question and I butted in, now I have a question for whoever.

several folks on here have said that the GW could have backed away and got out of the situation until the calvary arrived.

What kind of tune would you folks be singing, if when the old man came down out of his stand, instead of making a verbal threat, he would have just throwed up and shot the GW and killed him?

What if this thread had been titled "76 year old NC turkey hunter kills GW over illegal baiting investigation"?

How far would some of you folks back away from someone, before you either defended yourself or tried to turn and run.

Regardless of any of our opinions, this was a tragic incident for hunters nationwide.

The only two folks that know/knew what actually happened are not talking, one can't, and the other isn't for legal reasons.

It has however divided people into two camps at least on this site.

Camp One feels that whatever took place, it was tragic and it ruined several lives in that community.

Camp Two, believes or seems to believe that the GW was totally responsible for what happened, was the GW's name George W. Bush?

Not trying to be flippant or sarcastic about this, but as long as that old man was standing/setting/walking, whatever, with a loaded gun in his hand or to his shoulder, the GW had very limited control of the situiation and what his options were.

Norton, Physical evidence at the scene will back up the GW story or disprove it. LEO involved shootings are the most heavily investigated thing we do. In Harris Co. the agency involved investigators are there, if the officer shot someone outside his city etc. then someone from that city/county will be there, the Dist. Atty. Civil Rights Section Invest., Co. Atty. Invest., Medical Examiners Invest. (Peace Officers here). That what I can think of off the top of my head.

As to "in appropriate behavior", I'm sure it's looked at, thankful never have been involved in one, on either side, so I'm not sure what is looked at but I'm pretty sure it is.

quote:

Originally posted by Norton:
This was never intended, on my part, to be a bash all LE thread. If the GW's account was accurate then he acted appropriately.....that's something we'll never know.

I'd like to ask the LEOs on here one question(which I've asked 10 times in this thread already): If an officer has a pattern of inappropriate behavior documented by credible sources would that have any influence on how you see this case?

Yes and No Norton. It would make the investigators doing the civil part of the investigation look into the whole investigation and more deeply. But on the criminal side it would not make much difference. There are two investigations done on a shooting. The first being if policy was violated for internally and the external criminal investigation. The GW may not have violated the law but use of force policies could have been violated.

RVL is correct LEO shootings are investigated much more thoroughly than common murders. If the DA says no crimes were committed then I would believe it because I know how much work goes into an investigation. Usually you have an outside agency or federal agency investigate the criminal and the internal part is done by the agency or a completly different agency than the criminal.

Under Federal Law the internal investigators cannot share with the criminal. But the criminal can share with internal. Its call "Garrity".

If the GW had a documented history of excessive force or whatever, it would make the investigators suspicious throughout until they could prove or disprove accordingly.

It would have much more weight on the internal side when or if discipline was decided. In a civil court, wrongful death suit, it would have alot of weight.

Very thorough answers by all of you, thank you for taking the time.

CHC, you're right about bad apples.....sometimes there's those crazy families out in the country(and city, for that matter)that just don't think the law applies to them.

Earl and RVL, I'm sure what you say is pretty accurate in terms of investigation of LE shootings. I'd bet it's hard to find an entire dept. that's corrupt and so a bad cop in their ranks probably doesn't sit well with them either.

I hunt with a few cops......all good guys. Some veteran cops on another site answered a question awhile back and said that a lot of the young cops coming out nowadays, particularly those with military backgrounds, have a hard time learning how to treat people civilly.

Man, I can't wait for duck season.

The guys and gals that work for me that are just back from "the sandbox" don't have a problem "treating people civilly".

You can see they are changed, but not in a negative way that I have personally observed.

quote:

Originally posted by RVL III:
I'm a LEO and we are trained to shoot for center mass, to stop the threat.

Seems that just what the GW did, and then the GW tried to save the suspects life.

One shot then first aid....says it all.

If you point a gun at someone who also has a gun, you should be prepared to receive a bullet. The gun comes out when out when you feel your life is in danger.

quote:

Originally posted by RVL III:
The guys and gals that work for me that are just back from "the sandbox" don't have a problem "treating people civilly".

You can see they are changed, but not in a negative way that I have personally observed.

I was just quoting the LEOs from the other site.....he just said they had a hard time understanding it's better to have the good guys/minor offenders as LE's allies not adversaries......meaning don't treat non-scumbags, non-repeat offenders poorly.

Just my opinion on this, but there may be a lot of difference between those that have seen combat first hand, and those that have not been over there.

Sometimes, experiencing something first hand has a lot different effect on a person, then just going thru the training, but not being actually put in the game or possibly even on the sidelines.

Again, that is just an opine on my part.

Great avatar Norton.

Softly clearing his throat he slowly arose to speak....

It is true that only one living person really knows what happened and I will offer only from "his" perspective of the event. It is possible that the deceased may have saw the same event very "differently". I am not at all surprised that no criminal complaints were filed, unless the scene conditions and evidence were grossly at odds to the WG statement.

While I do not know what happened I will be so bold though to predict that a wrongful death lawsuit will be filed and will culiminate in a sealed agreement that will likely amount into the millions of dollars.

Only time will tell on that, and odds are it will happen so far down the line and will be hushed up to the point that none of us on here will ever know, if it doe happen.

I have read a lot of this thread and have the following question to the "anti" game warden crowd or the one fellow who said he should have shot a game warden for a list of "offenses".

1. Nearly every person a game encounters in the field is armed. Many believe it is a "right" to hunt when and where they wish. The hunter does not understand that hunting is a privilege granted by the state and the federal governments. They are highly trained on how to difuse complex situations involving firearms. How would you chose to approach a man that threatened to shoot you after identifying yourself as an officer and asked merely to discuss the situation?

2. What would our "hunting landscape" look like without game wardens? I am sure most of you are such good conservations you would never exceed a limit or violate a law.

3. There is no value in "hushing up" the shooting. If the game warden was wrong, he will be punished. If he was right, he was doing his job regardless of the age of perpetrator. Why hush this up? The penalty is too severe.

There is at least one person on here that does believe that hunting is a Right and not a privledge.

I am curious to see if he makes a response.

CrazyHC,
There is no law nor civil history which states that hunting is a "right", such as the inalienable rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" or the Bill of Rights or civil rights.

Hunting, in today's society, is a priviledge and the exercise there of is governed by laws and standards. The wild animals are "public property" (whether on private or public land) and hence the taking of public property is regulated as a privilege, like driving a car.

This is really not a debatable topic as it was decided a long time ago.

.458 Only:

quote:

Would it be considered "out of place" if I engage in this discussion for a few moments? I'm Canadian, and make no apologies for that, but have many American friends... my wife being one and my paternal grandmother was American.

I've read through this entire debate and the awful reality is it will never have a happy ending, no matter who is, or was, at fault. I think everyone's agreed on that. But, as an outsider, may I give a neutral observation on all that I've read here?

First off, I'm 73.5 years of age. And a hunter for over a half century. I kind of laugh at some of the remarks about "old guys" over 70,etc, being "nasty old men", or something along those lines. Let me say that as to my physical condition, I'm in a LOT better shape than most 50 year old men who sit all day behind a desk or a wheel of an auto! I know that from hunting with some forty and fifty year olds! But the comment that implies that men in their seventies are grumpy, grouchy, angry old men is like saying that because I know a few twenty-something year-olds who steal, lie and cheat that ALL twenty-year olds are like that! Many seventy plus year old men AND women are fun loving, cheerful and giving people.

I'm a writer of hunting and handloading manuals, and I love the outdoors. But also, I've been a pastor for over a half-century. Still am. My wife is a professional counsellor and a daughter is also. (My wife and I celebrated our 52nd this past sunday.) My youngest son - 44 years old - is a chaplain to a city police force in Western Canada. I have a close friend who is a Conservation Officer (Game Warden) who is retiring at the end of October, so what I say next is not based on prejudice, pretext or speculation.

In my experience as pastor I've had to step into marriages and family feuds to try to salvage the situation, and my wife and daughter have counselled hundreds where usually family tensions were involved. My son, the chaplain, confirms that family disputes involving husband and wife are the most difficult and dangerous for his officers. Why? Because, usually, even though they were combatants BEFORE the police arrived, after the police arrive they BOTH turn on him/her!

In other words, to give the short version: NO ONE is completely INNOCENT! There are two sides to every story, and since we're all guilty in one way or another, as the GOOD BOOK says "Let him/her who is without sin throw the first stone".

Will justice prevail? We can only hope and pray that it will! Just my take on it.

Bob

Amen Brother! No one wins on this one. Congrats on 52 years with the same woman! And you say shes an American?
Best wishes,
David

quote:

Amen Brother! No one wins on this one. Congrats on 52 years with the same woman! And you say shes an American?

Well, I can't help myself but that line reminded me of one of my favorite old jokes which I will clean up a bit for some of the audience......

A local Frenchman is walking down a lonely stretch of French beach and hears a woman crying, "Help, Help me!" out in the waves. He jumps in but by the time he gets there she has gone under. He finds her, gets her back to the beach and, in spite of his best efforts, he can't revive her. So, without any better alternative, he leaves her corpse and goes to call the gendarmes. After making the call, he goes back to the beach where he finds another local making love to the corpse.

He runs up to him and says, "Man, what are you doing, this girl is dead?"

The man jumps up in horror, "Dead, DEAD, you say?"

"Mon Dieu, I thought she was an American."

quote:

CrazyHC,
There is no law nor civil history which states that hunting is a "right", such as the inalienable rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" or the Bill of Rights or civil rights.

Hunting, in today's society, is a priviledge and the exercise there of is governed by laws and standards. The wild animals are "public property" (whether on private or public land) and hence the taking of public property is regulated as a privilege, like driving a car.

That has always been my take on the issue, but as I say, there is at least one AR member from Texas that seems to believe just the opposite.

Whether it is a Priveldge or a Right, does not matter, there are laws in place around the world governing how the activity can be conducted, and Game Wardens are the folks that have the job of making sure those laws/rules/regulations are followed.

The incident in NC is just a sad view of what can happen when two people can't agree as to how the situation is handled, one is dead, and the other will have to live with the actions he took that day.

In the end as has been stated many times, only those two folks actually know what happened.

The rest of us can only make assumptions.

CrazyHC,
You are correct.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
There is no law nor civil history which states that hunting is a "right", such as the inalienable rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" or the Bill of Rights or civil rights.

Hunting, in today's society, is a priviledge and the exercise there of is governed by laws and standards. The wild animals are "public property" (whether on private or public land) and hence the taking of public property is regulated as a privilege, like driving a car.

This is really not a debatable topic as it was decided a long time ago.

DC, I have absolutely no dog in this fight whatsoever, and personally can't believe this thread didn't die the good death some time ago, but your statement that there is no law regarding hunting as a right is factually incorrect. Several states have laws stating hunting is a "right", many have passed amendments to their state constitutions guaranteeing hunting rights. Wisonsin, Virginia, Vermont, North Dakota, Montana, Minnesota, Georgia, Alabama are all examples of states that have passed legislation regarding hunting by citizens, with most using the word "right". Now we all know there is no absolute "right" granted, they are all ultimately goverened on some level and all rights can be lost in varying situations, but the straight and narrow of it is that citizens of these states do enjoy legal protection of their hunting rights.

Wildlife Officer Minton Cleared in Fatal Shooting of Wilkes County Hunter

By Ron Fitzwater

An investigation conducted by the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation, concluded that North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) Law Enforcement Officer Mark Minton was justified in the fatal shooting of 77-year old Clyde Coffey on opening day of the 2009 wild turkey season.

District 23 District Attorney Tom E. Horner said he will not file any charges against Minton even though there was a growing call to do so by family members and others in the community.

"Officer Mark Minton's actions were reasonable and appropriate in response to the perceived use or imminent use of deadly physical force against him and no criminal prosecution is warranted," Horner said.

"Through the investigative efforts of the SBI, it was determined that Officer Minton became aware that someone was potentially baiting turkeys on the Clyde Coffey property on Cane Creek Church Road in Wilkes County. Based upon this knowledge, he went to that location to determine if anyone was illegally hunting turkey over this baited area," Horner said.

Saturday, April 11, was the first day of Spring Turkey Season in the state and Minton was on patrol in the area checking for the hunting violations when he entered property where the incident took place.

Originally Minton came across Larry Dean Helton, Coffey's son-in-law, in a tree stand at one location of the property. Officer Minton approached Helton and confronted Helton about baiting without incident. After receiving a citation Helton departed the area.

"Officer Minton was initially unsuccessful in multiple attempts to get Mr. Coffey's attention and have him exit the tree stand. At one point after he identified himself as a 'game warden,' Mr. Coffey stood up in the tree stand and in an agitated tone demanded that the officer leave his property," Horner said.

"Coffey continued to not comply with Minton's commands, causing him to radio for assistance to other NCWRC officers who were several miles away. However, before assistance could arrive, Coffey descended from the tree stand with his weapon cradled across his arms, disregarding the instructions of Officer Minton to leave the weapon in the stand," Horner said.

"According to the officer, when Coffey reached the ground, he advanced towards him, holding his weapon in a 'low ready' position and pointing it directly at the officer. Minton commanded him multiple times to stop and then retreated up the hill from Coffey approximately 85 feet from the tree stand as Coffey continued to pursue Minton with his shotgun pointing at him.

"Coffey was approximately 25 feet from Minton when again he was told to stop," Horner said. "Minton stated that he thought Mr. Coffey was going to shoot him; he drew his service weapon, pointed it at Mr. Coffey and fired one round, striking him in the chest. Coffey fell immediately.

Following the shooting, Minton radioed to the other officers that he had shot Coffey and EMS was requested.

"Minton attempted CPR on Coffey without success," Horner said.

Administrative Captain M. Cardwell of the Wilkes County Sheriff's Department confirmed that the call for assistance from Minton "came in at 7:35 a.m." that a shooting had taken place and that assistance and medical first responders were needed on the scene. According to Cardwell, Wilkes County Deputies were first to arrive on the scene where they discovered Coffey dead from a single gunshot.

Wilkes County Deputies remained on scene until around noon, when the incident scene and investigation was taken over by the State Bureau of Investigation (required when a state officer is involved in an on-duty shooting).

"In the course of the investigation, SBI agents collected 'scratch feed,' which is commonly used for baiting turkeys, from the area around Coffey's tree stand. This feed was consistent with feed located at Coffey's residence and with feed located near the tree stand occupied by Helton.

"Agents also determined that Coffey suffered from hearing loss. According to information provided by the family of Coffey, the conduct described by Minton was out of character for Coffey," the district attorney said.

North Carolina general statutes authorize a law enforcement officer to arrest someone without a warrant if the officer has probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a criminal offense in their presence and is justified in using force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary when it is or appears to be reasonably necessary from what is reasonably believed to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force.

"After a thorough review of the SBI's report, interviews with the investigating agents, a review of the appropriate legal standards and in consultation with the North Carolina Attorney General's Office, it appears that Officer Minton's actions were reasonable and appropriate in response to the perceived use or imminent use of deadly physical force by Mr. Coffey," Horner said. "Therefore, criminal prosecution of Officer Minton for the shooting death of Clyde Hill Coffey is not warranted."

The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission was notified of the findings by the State Bureau of Investigation and the Wilkes County District Attorney's Office.

"We appreciate the work of both agencies to resolve this issue," said Gordon Myers, the executive director of the commission. "An internal investigation is ongoing and until the investigation is complete, it would not be appropriate for the Commission to comment further."

So be it.

Many Thanks for posting that information Tony.

I have to say, that while it does point out the way the law in NC stands on the incident, many folks are still going to question this officers actions, and I am sure that there will be a Wrongful Death Civil Suit filed by the deceased persons family.

The GW has only been cleared criminally. He still has the IAD investigation to go through. Then possibly civil action against him after that.

quote:

Originally posted by RVL III:
The GW has only been cleared criminally. He still has the IAD investigation to go through. Then possibly civil action against him after that.

IAD will likely fall in line with the DA's office and SBI. Civil suit is another story, and since it was in the line of duty and in accordance with the laws of the state, his defense will be footed by state funds, so everyone loses. Again, guilty or not, I'm sure this will be with him for a long time.

Here in the wacky state, Taser's are a mixed blessing, they provide a way of dealing with potentially lethal situation without having to kill someone. Unfortunately, BART police had an incident where an officer drew his handgun instead of his Taser thereby killing a suspect he meant to tase. It was a criticism dating back to design that it might happen, and it took about 10 years before it did.

John

For what its worth, if someone is pointing a shotgun at me, tasing him would be the furtherest thing from my mind.
And, of course, the family is gonna say the old man's actions were totally out of character. There's some "free money" to be made.

Not just the design but how they are carried (weapon hand vs reaction hand) could be part of the problem.

quote:

Originally posted by stillbeeman:
For what its worth, if someone is pointing a shotgun at me, tasing him would be the furtherest thing from my mind.
And, of course, the family is gonna say the old man's actions were totally out of character. There's some "free money" to be made.

I doubt that it is that bad, more likely the family never seen Granddad that pissed off b4. Everyone has their buttons, and the family doesn't always no what they are. Until they file a suit, give them the benefit of the doubt.

As for the Taser, during the design phase, some police dept's wanted a pistol design arguing that it would be the easiest to train since pistols were already a primary weapon. Other depts wanted to see a design that was different than a pistol as to reinforce the difference between the two.

As for getting shot by someone after using the taser, not likely, it is instantly disruptive of the muscle control nerves, basically you can't move and just fall to the ground. It is not without hazard, but still better odds than being shot. I would liken it to having a stroke, you are telling your body to do something, it just doesn't respond.

In this case, due to the ranges involved, it would not have helped.

Hopefully all parties are able to come to peace with what happened.

John

I stand by my word:

quote:

Originally posted by Flippy:
I told both my girls YEARS AGO:

If a LEO tells you to put up your hands, then PUT UP YOUR HANDS.

If a LEO stops you and tells you to exit the car with your hands visible, then EXIT THE CAR WITH YOUR HANDS VISIBLE.

If a LEO tells you to lay face down on the ground with your hands over your head, then LAY FACE DOWN ON THE GROUND WITH YOUR HANDS OVER YOUR HEAD.

Whatever mistake the LEO made (there are many blue Fords, blonde girls, etc. etc.) will be cleared up as soon as the LEO runs your information.
To do otherwise might mean the LEO will have to shoot you.
Once the LEO pulls the trigger, it is too late to comply.

If you don't comply, you will be right, but you will still be DEAD.

Yep. The guy is dead.

My Dad told me YEARS AGO:

quote:

Originally told to me by my Dad:

Mike, some people are born stupid.

Other people it takes them their whole life to get that way.

I figure this is what he was referring to.

---Mike

I don't know what the effective range of a taser is but I daresay it's nowhere near the lethal range of a shotgun.
While I am more than happy to give the family the benefit of the doubt, aren't they the ones that are saying the GW is a low down POS? And, in truth, they have no more information than you and I?

quote:

Originally posted by stillbeeman:
I don't know what the effective range of a taser is but I daresay it's nowhere near the lethal range of a shotgun.
While I am more than happy to give the family the benefit of the doubt, aren't they the ones that are saying the GW is a low down POS? And, in truth, they have no more information than you and I?

That is absolutely true, and if it was your dad or mine I am sure we would feel the same pain and anger. Given time, I'm sure their feelings will change a little.

JOhn

Yea, I'm sure that given time, they will decide their loved one needed a killing. In Outdoor Writer's relating of the official account, I didn't see the the deceased's threat made from the tree stand. That was much made of in the early postings on this thread. I don't know what happened out there, I just find it facinating to see everyone's prejudices reveiled. One side is automatically against the GW. The other side thinks the only surviving witness's testimony should be engraved in granite. Intrigueing.

quote:

Originally posted by gbanger:
Yea, I'm sure that given time, they will decide their loved one needed a killing. In Outdoor Writer's relating of the official account, I didn't see the the deceased's threat made from the tree stand. That was much made of in the early postings on this thread. I don't know what happened out there, I just find it facinating to see everyone's prejudices reveiled. One side is automatically against the GW. The other side thinks the only surviving witness's testimony should be engraved in granite. Intrigueing.

Dude, get a grip. There is no moderation these days, either your on one side or another, and heaven help the people who says something that doesn't swell your ego.

No, nobody will decide that someone should have their relative killed, that is ludicrously stupid. And it was nothing close to anything that was posted. Lets step it down a notch, quit trying to force everyone to be your minions, not every one will cower to you because you can post nastily on the internet.

I am sure in time, the relatives will see what this is, a tragic event that left them without the relative, and not a premeditated murder by a sociopathic renegade DFG agent. That was the intent of what was said.

No, I think a few people showed moderation.

Yes there were folks on each side of the fence, but there were some that were setting square on the fence saying wait and see what the official investigation findings were.

Even with those, there is still doubt in many folks mind.

Could the GW as some have mentioned, backed out of the situation and waited till the troops arrived for back up.

Would the outcome have been different if there had been 2 GW's involved in the original contact, not one.

Was it established how the GW was dressed?

Was he working undercover/out of uniform?

Would the results have been different if he had been dressed in a regular uniform?

There is always going to be lingering doubt about this situation in many peoples mind.

Some people however may change their attitude toward how they react toward an LEO when being stopped for a possible violation, some may be more willing to go along with the officers orders, some may get more hostile.

What concerns me about this case is that there is really no way to ascertain what actually happened. There is only one witness left alive and a person that had every reason in the world to justify his actions. It is interesting that the statement said that the "evidence" matched the statements of the shooter. I would suggest that the evidence only showed that the deceased was shot at a specific point. Arguably there was not nor could be specific evidence that established any actions by the shot hunter or the shooter. It is entirely plausible that the hunter simply climbed from his tree stand and walked toward the game warden without any threatening actions whatsoever and then, apparently due to some preceived threat the game warden shot him. This too would be consistent with the "evidence".

The issue I see here is that the primary matter is that the shot hunter was armed (legally) and therefore the mere presence of the shotgun obviate the argument as to whether any threat could have reasonably existed.

I think of recent police shootings where a person was unarmed. The argument then centered on did he have something in his hand that could have been perceived as a weapon or a gun. (I cannot recall the specific case in NY where a victim had a wallet and was shot on the steps to his house.) It was determined that the wallet could have been interpreted as a gun which justified the shooting.

Here, since the shot hunter was initially armed this argument as to a "threat" is rendered moot as he obviously had a firearm.

This case scares me as it represents a template whereby any game warden or officer can shot a hunter and immediately be presumed to have intial justification simply because the hunter was initially armed.

I await the flaming to begin.....

no flaming here....that post is way beyond stupid and not worth flaming......

troy, retired game warden

Dear Troy,

The "stupid comment" is flaming in an of its self. Howver I will look past that as I frankly feel a little sorry for anyone who cannot see beyond there own preconceptions and biases to engage in thoughtful discussion.

Best regards....

Sorry Don in Colo, your conjecture don't wash. The GW was accustomed to dealing with armed hunters very day or at least often in his line of duty. One would think even a untrained person could tell the difference between a fellow holding a weapon and a fellow using the weapon in a threatening manner. He had just ticketed the old man's son for the same offense so one assumes the son was armed and the GW didn't shoot him.

I don't know anything about the type of soil in this area, or lack thereof (rocky ground, perhaps), but I'm just guessing that there would be footprints on the ground that would show where everyone one involved traveled.

Is it SOP for GW to order those they have contact with to leave their firearm in the stand? If so, and if this GW was known to follow policy, (find out by asking those he wrote citations to in the past) then that's another point in his favor. If not, then who knows.