My last encounter with a Ut game warden was when I took a grandson target shooting. We were in the bottom of a steep draw, set up some cans and some other trash we picked up in the area and shot. We picked up the trash, bagged it and were ready to leave. My grandson saw a squirrel and asked if he could shoot it. I said yes, long story short he shot once and missed chased it a short distance and missed again. When we got to the bottom of the canyon and hour later on the way home we were stopped by a f&g officer who accused us of shooting at elk. If there were elk in the area, I didn't see them. Evidently someone turned us in. The officer ran my 14 year old grandson over the coals, was rude and agressive. I stayed quiet until I heard enough then intervened. When I pointed out that the questions he asked were out of line he started on me being a bad example. BS I teach gun safety to all my grandsons to get them ready for hunter safety, practice their shooting skills with them and in general encourage them to hunt fish be in the outdoors even if their dads don't. It just seems to happen every time I am at a road block for big game check etc. Seems like I end up defending my self when there are no violations. I find MOST not all arrogant and agressive and abusive. I hope your experiences are better, mine have not been. I have never been ticketed for any fish and game violation. I'm 72 and hunted and fished until my back gave out. Probably had 55 years of outdoor experience.

Google does indeed bring up some interesting reads if one has a past with a game violation or two they are indeed easy to find

Folks, like any other profession there will be good people and those that aren't so good.

Really great post.

quote:

Originally posted by lindy2:
My experience in doing criminal defense work for a number of years is that the time to rigorously defend your constitutional rights is in court and not during an altercation with an officer.

If you escalate the situation with the officer you are going to lose that battle almost every time.

You are always much better to remain as calm as you can be, provide a minimum of information so that you can be identified, and do exactly as the officer says.

If your rights have been violated, the time to bring it up is during one of the omnibus hearings if you have been charged.

If you are actually guilty you of course should ask if you are free to go. If you are told that you are not you should just stop answering questions. But do not stop being polite and cooperative with the officer.
The more you escalate the more the officer will escalate.

Remember, the officer only needs articulable suspicion that a crime (any crime) has been committed in order to escalate his or her involvement with you. If you act like you are guilty of a crime you will more than likely be suspected of a crime. If you act calm and cool and collected and respect the officer you will more than likely receive the same treatment in return.

Again, the time and place to mount your defense, if one is needed, is in a court of law.

I am not saying that you should not defend your constitutional rights. You certainly should. But not with the officer. They do not make the decision whether you have committed a crime or not. The court does that if you have been charged.

If you have an animal, any animal, and you have it legally, let the officer do his job, and if the officer makes a mistake and wrongly charges you of a crime mount your defense in court, including any complaints about the officer's conduct.

Best post of the thread

What CHC and Ted said!!!

quote:

But a simple act of getting arrested even if all charges are dismissed will get ones mug shot picture in local newspaper and on the web. That to me is tremendous power law enforcement has over professionals. Your local thug, junkie, ect could care less about it. But imagine having to explain your mugshot every time somebody googles you.

This is what is wrong with our justice system. If some "other" gets their life fucked over by law enforcement it is understood, but if a "professional" gets entangled in the judicial system is an attack on the constitution.

I was just discussing the importance of the rule of law with my young son, how in the near future when "professionals" are a minority and "others" are in the majority we will truly appreciate the wisdom of the founding fathers and why the constitution matters. When we don't care how the "thugs" are treated we are unpatriotic. The "power of law enforcement" has the opportunity to fuck over any station in society if unchecked.

I also agree with what lindy2 wrote.

slim,

Is it really just the power of law enforcement or the power of a the press and the internet?

My point is...think of two scenarios:

1) a LEO makes a good faith judgement about an arrest but is factually wrong and the person is ultimately acquitted but the media and the internet goes viral over the arrest and because of who the person is or the person brings upon themselves via their own posts trumpeting their innocence but enemies take the excerpts that they like and spin the information

2) LEO makes a good faith judgement about an arrest but is factually wrong and the person is ultimately acquitted and their is no media coverage

One life ruined, the other not the only difference was publicity which law enforcement usually has nothing to do with

quote:

Originally posted by Mike_Dettorre:
slim,

Is it really [b}just[/b] the power of law enforcement or the power of a the press and the internet?

My point is...think of two scenarios:

1) a LEO makes a good faith judgement about an arrest but is factually wrong and the person is ultimately acquitted but the media and the internet goes viral over the arrest and because of who the person is or the person brings upon themselves via their own posts trumpeting their innocence but enemies take the excerpts that they like and spin the information

2) LEO makes a good faith judgement about an arrest but is factually wrong and the person is ultimately acquitted and their is no media coverage

One life ruined, the other not the only difference was publicity which law enforcement usually has nothing to do with

Bingo!

I had a client, now deceased, who was arrested for sexually assaulting his daughter. He was a well known local businessman. It was on the front page of the local paper and was on the local news.

Fast forward a few months, the police found out that the assault did not happen. My client’s ex wife put the daughter up to making the allegations. All charges were dropped?

Did any word of the charges being dropped appear in the paper or in the local news? Not a word. To the day he died, many thought he was guilty.

Expanding on what Larry says, I would just remind everyone that in criminal cases where there isn't a whole lot of physical or even testimonial evidence both perception and credibility are heavyweights.

I have watched mock jury trials where the researchers filmed juries during deliberations. You would be surprised, and maybe even shocked, by what you see. Thins like "well, he just looks guilty", or "I don't like how she treated her children" were actually taken into account in determining innocence or guilt.

Nowdays many law enforcement agencies use cameras on their officers, both for the protection of the officer and the protection of the public. Those tapes can be showin in court, as can tapes of a suspect sitting in the backseat of a squad car, and of course tapes made during interrogation.

Juries may not have a clue of whether an accused person is truly guilty or not, but they often find people innocent or guilty based solely on perception and what is loosely called "credibility". "Well, he sounded like he was telling the truth, so I voted for his innocence rather than his guilt"!

Moral of the story. Again, if you are contacted by law enforcement personnel in connection with hunting or fishing or other outdoor activities, remain calm, remain polite, and if you feel that you need to protect constitutional rights make sure and express so in a polite manner to the officer. You can always say, "am I under arrest", or "am I free to go". If you are under arrest, or not free to go, then you can politely respond to questions by stating that you wish to remain silent until you have a chance to speak with counsel. Make sure and say that anytime there is a camera or a recorder being used so that it becomes evidence. Don't wait until your in the middle of a trial to proclaim that you were not afforded your constitutional rights to remain silent and have counsel present when being questioned.

Remember, perception and credibility can go a long long way in these types of situations.

Not disputing any of the above, but from past experiences and discussions with various people, some individuals really do have some form of a problem when confronted by a Law Enforcement Officer of any type.

With some folks it seems like it is just part of their being, they have an actual problem dealing with anyone that has any form of Legal Authority over them.

On the flip side, there are people that should NEVER hold any position of authority.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike_Dettorre:
slim,

Is it really [b}just[/b] the power of law enforcement or the power of a the press and the internet?

My point is...think of two scenarios:

1) a LEO makes a good faith judgement about an arrest but is factually wrong and the person is ultimately acquitted but the media and the internet goes viral over the arrest and because of who the person is or the person brings upon themselves via their own posts trumpeting their innocence but enemies take the excerpts that they like and spin the information

2) LEO makes a good faith judgement about an arrest but is factually wrong and the person is ultimately acquitted and their is no media coverage

One life ruined, the other not the only difference was publicity which law enforcement usually has nothing to do with

Bingo!

I had a client, now deceased, who was arrested for sexually assaulting his daughter. He was a well known local businessman. It was on the front page of the local paper and was on the local news.

Fast forward a few months, the police found out that the assault did not happen. My client’s ex wife put the daughter up to making the allegations. All charges were dropped?

Did any word of the charges being dropped appear in the paper or in the local news? Not a word. To the day he died, many thought he was guilty.

The basic question is what punishment was given to the Ex and the daughter? It seems that woman and minorities can make any claims they wish and the media goes nuts with allegations. If the claims are proven false, the accuser merely walks away and looks for another victim.

It has been a long time. I have forgotten. To the best of my recollection, he did not press charges against his daughter. His ex was punished but I have forgotten the details. Over 20 years have passed.

quote:

It seems that woman and minorities can make any claims they wish and the media goes nuts with allegations.

If only they would take their shit, as in the good old days.

When good "majority male folk" made any claims against a woman or minority the media did not have to go nuts, they just got what ever the majority male folk said.

Like I explained to my young and later my daughter, if the constitution and the rule of law does not work for everyone it will soon work for no one.

Could a "prejudice" that white men are assholes who have abused their status as a "white male" be used against them? Sure. Prejudice will prove once again to be a bitch.

We have gone far afield from the OP but the underlying fact is you (the original OP) was able to go home and bitch and complain while others would have been forgotten and worse just assumed guilty. Prejudged.

If women and minorities can't make claims of an injustice there is a problem. The evidence shows that more times than not they, women and minorities, just take the injustice because that is the way it is.

Change will be tough for some.

Years ago one of the wife's cousin's was left to babysit a girl in diapers. she'd shit and he was changing/washing her up. When his bitchy wife walked in and called the law for: molesting the baby girl". Dave was arrested on a Friday afternoon and spent most of a week in jail under $50,000 bail he had no hope's of posting. Finally at his first court hearing it came out the wife was p'd at him and falsely accused him.

Judge dismissed it as it should have been. Within a few months she'd left the same kid with him and he refused to change her. Damned if he wasn't hauled in for: child abuse for NOT changing her!

Wife and I tried our best to get him to file charges on her for pulling that shit. He wouldn't do it, "I have to live with her". She was around 400-450lbs, mostly filled up a bus bench alone. Her health failed a few years later and she died, damned if she didn't leave everything to her older kids. Dave was SOL, even though he'd mostly rebuilt the run down place with his own money.
Sometimes there's no way to break even. More so with a bitch like she was.

George

quote:

Originally posted by slim buttes:

quote:

But a simple act of getting arrested even if all charges are dismissed will get ones mug shot picture in local newspaper and on the web. That to me is tremendous power law enforcement has over professionals. Your local thug, junkie, ect could care less about it. But imagine having to explain your mugshot every time somebody googles you.

This is what is wrong with our justice system. If some "other" gets their life fucked over by law enforcement it is understood, but if a "professional" gets entangled in the judicial system is an attack on the constitution.

I was just discussing the importance of the rule of law with my young son, how in the near future when "professionals" are a minority and "others" are in the majority we will truly appreciate the wisdom of the founding fathers and why the constitution matters. When we don't care how the "thugs" are treated we are unpatriotic. The "power of law enforcement" has the opportunity to fuck over any station in society if unchecked.

I also agree with what lindy2 wrote.

Professionals are already minorities.
Minority in the sense of earnings, income, political power.

I am just stating reality - a doctor, lawyer, financial advisor, dentist, pilot ect having their mug shot show up in every google search has a far bigger financial social professional impact than a personal with long rap sheet.

Majority of professionals would behave calmly with law enforcement and would get the same in exchange. But alcohol often has a way of changing that.

Mike

The higher up the societal ladder a person is, the more damaging a bad interaction with the authorities is and the less forgiving the public opinion.

WOW - this has gone far! Sorry, I seriously have not looked at this for a couple of weeks now - I wasn't avoiding it for any reason. I take no offense to anyone's opinion, everyone is entitled to their's. I appreciate your input....regardless.

Ok, all the BS - opinions, personal attacks aside. My real point was, that IMO too often our personal freedoms / rights and the law is abused by those in power simply because they think they can do so. I was hoping this might help some folks to recognize their rights, and study the laws where they hunt - so as not to have any un-forseen issues.

My point wasn't whether you agreed with me, liked me, or not?! My point was everyone should know their rights, and to the best of their ability - know the law. Knowing the law, all the laws is difficult at best as there's tons of little things that many of us are simply not aware of...period. That doesn't mean we are trying to be law breakers or poachers - but maybe something simple we were just not aware of? Who here "without looking it up", can tell me the legal way in CO to give game animal / meat you shot personally to your hunting companion? I'll be you'd be surprised at what the law says.

How many here have seen hundreds of deer / elk from Colorado "illegally" tagged on social media....I sure have. Its a "CARCASS TAG, not a horn tag. Attach the tag to the horns and its "illegally" tagged. I've literally seen it hundreds of times!!!!

Someone ask Drummond Lindsey about all the ass I've chewed with guides for maybe not taking every bit of edible meat - even though the CO regs say we are NOT required to take neck meat legally?? Ask Drummond if he's ever seen a hunter who "tries" harder than me to follow the law? Am I infallible...nope! But guys I sure am trying to do it right.

So with that said, set aside my personal rhetoric / opinions, and I'll be as honest as possible about the FACTS ONLY!

1. Nothing I was doing was in the least bit illegal....period!

2. I was irritated by the fact that the wardens came into a public restaurant in front of other patrons, in a place I frequent, and my group in an attempt to question me. They admitted straight away they knew who I was, so it wasn't just a simple inquiry. Simply wait outside and when we are finished - I'll converse with you (its called mutual respect from the get-go) Want respect - give respect.

3. A simple question for you all.....the fact remains I had / possessed in my truck NOTHING that on its face was illegal or could even appear illegal, so what's the reason for the questions in the first place?

4. My 5th amendment right allows me to refuse to answer questions...period! I can't believe anyone would think I'm in the wrong by doing what I am legally allowed to do, and is a constitutional right. I was not rude to begin with, I simply said I refuse to answer questions - that's my RIGHT as an American citizen.

5. Not liking the fact that I refused to answer questions, the lead warden then immediately proceeded to LIE to me about the law, a law I know very well, and that's when my hackles went up. I didn't lie to him...not once!!! Why should I accept him lying to me, which is simply an intimidation tactic - insinuating I'm breaking the law, when I'm not?!?! Maybe you will accept that, but I will not! Don't accuse me of a crime that does not exist...period!!!

6. The warden clearly stated I was in violation of COLORADO law, without a "license" attached to the antlers of the elk....that is 100% false!! That's a lie!

7. When we got to my truck the warden was rummaging through my stuff without a warrant....that is NOT lawful!!!!

8. The warden told me unless I could PROVE to him I took the elk legally, he could confiscate it - that too was a bold face lie! No American citizen is ever required to prove your innocence....good heavens!!! He insisted I was required to prove I had an elk license in CO last fall that allowed me to shoot this elk?! Last time I checked Colorado was NOT the only state in the country that has elk!?!?!

9. When I informed the warden the elk was not taken in CO, the first words out of his mouth were, I then could be guilty of a Lacey Act violation? Even though he has NO IDEA where I took the elk, when, if I had a license, etc, etc. More threats...period!

10. The elk rack was IN FACT TAGGED....all he had to do was LOOK and see, but instead we went through 30 minutes of all my law-breaking actions until he realized the rack was in fact tagged from the Navajo Rez in AZ/NM.

11. In the state of CO, I can have in my possession 300 elk racks in the back of an 18 wheeler - not a single one of them is required to be licensed / tagged. If I want to sell / buy 300 elk racks without a license attached its perfectly legal....period!!!!

12. When was the last time you were parked in a lot, and a police officer walked up to you and asked you to prove you own your car legally???? Its not an illegal item to possess, thus there's no probable cause to assume a crime has been committed.....period! This is really simple!!!

13. Did you guys read the part where I stated we all had a follow up meeting the next week? I took a friend of mine...he's current Law Enforcement / SWAT team leader here in the Denver area. He did nothing but listen to the entire hour long conversation. When we left, he too confirmed the wardens told me several things that were clearly NOT legal, were violations of the constitution, and not within the jurisdiction of the LAW....period!!! Which I already knew - that's why I stood my ground.

I didn't stop them from inspecting the rack - legally they can do that here in CO. I followed the law....the law that applies to them just like me. But I wasn't going to be bullied into doing / saying something that was not necessary - because they were willing to bluff me with lies. A tactic the Supreme Court has ruled is legal for LE to do.

Both parties could have handled it better, me included. Fact is, had they simply waited at my vehicle and been HONEST with me the whole encounter would have gone differently. But.....I will not be bullied and I will not be lied to by LE. Otherwise I will give you all the respect in the world.

On average....I donate at least $3,000 per year to LE causes....that's a fact. One of my closest friends is LE, I respect them greatly. But even he agrees - GW's really seem to have a chip on their shoulder? He personally had a run-in with this same warden a couple years ago, and he said it was really bad!!! So in response, I guess I have one too! I don't insinuate that I'm right...but my livelihood is on the line here too - so maybe I am a bit over-protective as well???

I've been in the hunting biz for 26 yrs now...until you've walked in my shoes - I would invite you to come and see the reality from my perspective!? We all see / experience the world differently.

So set aside the "personal" BS, and look at the facts of what happened. There's a reason I was not charged, or my animals were not confiscated.....that's because I was doing NOTHING WRONG!!

Remember folks, ANYTHING can be made to look sinister by the media or an attorney. Funny how truth can be distorted by perception and/or those uninterested in it.

quote:

I've been in the hunting biz for 26 yrs now...until you've walked in my shoes - I would invite you to come and see the reality from my perspective!? We all see / experience the world differently.We all see / experience the world differently.

That in and of itself does more to explain why some of us have responded the way we have, some of us have never experiernced such behavior from a Game Warden or possibly any LEO.

The only times I had any experience dealing with GW's in Colorado and Wyoming, they were courteous, professional and helpful and have never had a bad experience with a Texas GW, even one that had a deserved reputation for being a Hard Ass.

Until a person has experienced such behavior from an Leo, they can't really understand.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

I've been in the hunting biz for 26 yrs now...until you've walked in my shoes - I would invite you to come and see the reality from my perspective!? We all see / experience the world differently.We all see / experience the world differently.

That in and of itself does more to explain why some of us have responded the way we have, some of us have never experiernced such behavior from a Game Warden or possibly any LEO.

The only times I had any experience dealing with GW's in Colorado and Wyoming, they were courteous, professional and helpful and have never had a bad experience with a Texas GW, even one that had a deserved reputation for being a Hard Ass.

Until a person has experienced such behavior from an Leo, they can't really understand.

Its a 2 way street CHC, and I realize I'm not always RIGHT. I'm human, and I make mistakes too - but in this case I firmly believe in my heart I was being targeted because of who I am, and what they readily admitted they know about me.

You are most certainly allowed to exercise your right to remain silent and to have counsel present if you are questioned.

However, you do not have the right to "control the show" when you are being confronted by a police officer.

It is the officer who determines whether they have a reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed, not the person who is being suspected.

And once an officer determines that he does have a reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime may have been committed, he then has the right to detain the suspected person. And once he has detained the person (the person is not free to leave) the officer then has the right to self protection - the right to do a pat search to check for weapons - and the right to search what is in plain sight.

It really does not matter what the person thinks at this point in time. Courts give great deference to the officers because
1. they are there
2. they are deemed more credible than the person who may be suspected of something.

So, anyone can do what they want to. Its up to them. But if they do choose to escalate the situation by essentially interfering with the officer who is "investigating" what they subjectively suspect may be criminal activity the person will just make it worse.

You can stand there and not say a thing. You really don't have to even give your name if the officer tells you that you are free to go because he does not suspect you of anything but is just looking around. But if you are told you are not free to leave, or even if you are stopped and the officer tells you that he clocked you at 1 mile per hour over the speed limit, you have to show your license. And if you are not driving but are going to get in a car and the officer believes there are exigent circumstances (you are going to get away) then he may prevent you from leaving until satisfied that no crime has been committed.

Bottom line, again, is that the time to complain about your rights being violated is when you later on sit down with your counsel and talk about it. If you haven't been arrested and want to file a lawsuit go ahead. But if you escalate a stop, any kind of stop, and the officer has any articulable suspicion, you are probably going to make things worse.

Its up to you.

quote:

Originally posted by lindy2:
My experience in doing criminal defense work for a number of years is that the time to rigorously defend your constitutional rights is in court and not during an altercation with an officer.

If you escalate the situation with the officer you are going to lose that battle almost every time.

You are always much better to remain as calm as you can be, provide a minimum of information so that you can be identified, and do exactly as the officer says.

If your rights have been violated, the time to bring it up is during one of the omnibus hearings if you have been charged.

If you are actually guilty you of course should ask if you are free to go. If you are told that you are not you should just stop answering questions. But do not stop being polite and cooperative with the officer.
The more you escalate the more the officer will escalate.

Remember, the officer only needs articulable suspicion that a crime (any crime) has been committed in order to escalate his or her involvement with you. If you act like you are guilty of a crime you will more than likely be suspected of a crime. If you act calm and cool and collected and respect the officer you will more than likely receive the same treatment in return.

Again, the time and place to mount your defense, if one is needed, is in a court of law.

I am not saying that you should not defend your constitutional rights. You certainly should. But not with the officer. They do not make the decision whether you have committed a crime or not. The court does that if you have been charged.

If you have an animal, any animal, and you have it legally, let the officer do his job, and if the officer makes a mistake and wrongly charges you of a crime mount your defense in court, including any complaints about the officer's conduct.

Interesting post here....please know I am not trying to be confrontational, asking as you are more versed than me.

1. So in your opinion as stated in paragraph one is that citizens when contacted by LE should not enact their constitutional rights??? Such as your 5th amendment right to remain silent? Other defense attorneys I've talked to have always told me to "remain silent" when dealing with LE?

2. I'd agree with paragraph 2

3. Paragraph 3 - well if you've allowed your rights to be violated and you've already agreed to give incriminating statements to LE - its gonna be a bit late in the court room to ask for them back isn't it??!!

4. Paragraph 4 sounds good to me.

5. Paragraph 5 - very true, but he must be able to articulate to you what crime he's accusing you / suspecting you of committing. Unfortunately most folks have no idea if he's telling them the truth or not, and he's legally allowed to lie. Thus the IMPORTANCE of knowing the laws to the best of your ability. I was accused of 3 different infractions during this interaction that DID NOT EXIST....and I knew it!!

6. Paragraph 6 - yes, the time to mount your "defense" is in court no doubt, BUT....the time to know / protect your rights is during questioning / interrogation. Once you've made statements....your "defense" is of little help if you incriminated yourself!!!!

7. Paragraph 7 - agreed. I let the officer do his job. he has the legal authority (not a right - LE has no RIGHTS, they simply have legal authority, citizens have the RIGHTS) to "inspect" wildlife in CO, nothing more. I have the constitutional RIGHT not to answer questions.... He can ask all he wants, any good attorney would advise his client never to answer!!!!

You're not the only one who studied the law....my dumbass just thought hunting for a living would be more fun.

I have another good friend who spent 4 years as an ADA....and we chuckle about all of his past cases all the time (he's now a criminal defense attorney - we met in college). He said point blank....80% of our convictions came directly from the statements made by the defendants because they were TOTALLY unaware of their right to "remain silent"!!!! Never wait to fight for your rights in court....that's foolish. Fight for your rights and know your rights when dealing with LE. You can't win the battle, when the war is already over!!!

quote:

Originally posted by lindy2:
You are most certainly allowed to exercise your right to remain silent and to have counsel present if you are questioned.

However, you do not have the right to "control the show" when you are being confronted by a police officer.

It is the officer who determines whether they have a reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed, not the person who is being suspected.

And once an officer determines that he does have a reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime may have been committed, he then has the right to detain the suspected person. And once he has detained the person (the person is not free to leave) the officer then has the right to self protection - the right to do a pat search to check for weapons - and the right to search what is in plain sight.

It really does not matter what the person thinks at this point in time. Courts give great deference to the officers because
1. they are there
2. they are deemed more credible than the person who may be suspected of something.

So, anyone can do what they want to. Its up to them. But if they do choose to escalate the situation by essentially interfering with the officer who is "investigating" what they subjectively suspect may be criminal activity the person will just make it worse.

You can stand there and not say a thing. You really don't have to even give your name if the officer tells you that you are free to go because he does not suspect you of anything but is just looking around. But if you are told you are not free to leave, or even if you are stopped and the officer tells you that he clocked you at 1 mile per hour over the speed limit, you have to show your license. And if you are not driving but are going to get in a car and the officer believes there are exigent circumstances (you are going to get away) then he may prevent you from leaving until satisfied that no crime has been committed.

Bottom line, again, is that the time to complain about your rights being violated is when you later on sit down with your counsel and talk about it. If you haven't been arrested and want to file a lawsuit go ahead. But if you escalate a stop, any kind of stop, and the officer has any articulable suspicion, you are probably going to make things worse.

Its up to you.

Another great post!!!

Paragraph 1 - obviously we agree on that

Paragraph 2 - Not true....LE has NO RIGHTS, they have legal authority granted to them by sworn confirmation of their LE license / LE employment. I have every bit the same "right" to dictate the situation as they do.

Paragraph 3 - The LE officer must orally explain their reason for articulate suspicion of a crime that simultaneously follows a current (in this case) Colorado Revised Statute (CRS), not simply say you are breaking a law and thus you must comply. Funny how when you point your cell phone at them while on "record" they seem to lose interest - as I did in my case. Dude....have you done this before?

Paragraph 4 - totally disagree. If a person knows the law, and knows they are being hood-winked, its incumbent upon them to not only stand up for their rights, but to resist tyranny from dis-honest LE who are simply trying to take advantage of citizens who they believe DO NOT know the law / their rights!

Paragraph 5 - Dude....I mean no disrespect but are you a real lawyer?? If one is pulled over for supposedly violating a traffic violation you are required to provide license (ID) otherwise most states are not Terry v Ohio in which they act as Stop / ID states.....period!! This is way off topic, but unless LE can articulate my suspected crime I am never required to provide ID....period! Officers are also allowed to "detain" folks, if they can articulate a suspected crime, which they must. At the same time - the Supreme court has OFFICIALLY RULED, citizens have the right to refuse unlawful detention (to the point of self defense / taking an officer's life) if said officer is attempting to detain / arrest one unlawfully!!!!

Paragraph 6 - totally disagree!!! By that point you have either agreed to having your rights violated, or you've voluntarily violated your own rights. You can't put the ketchup back in the bottle after you've squeezed it out!

I know I'm just an ole dumb hunting guide...but I read / studied Constitutional Law once, long ago!!!

quote:

Its a 2 way street CHC, and I realize I'm not always RIGHT.

Whether you are Right or not, LEO's not matter the department they represent Do or Should have a code of conduct to follow.

That is why I say that for those of us that have not had to deal with LEO's that are not sticking to that code of conduct it is difficult to grasp the concept.

Not saying it didn't happen to you or doesn't happen to others, but until it does happen a person will have a hard time understandiong what it feels like.

You are correct, I should have said duty instead of right when speaking about officers with the caveat that officers do not lose their constitutional rights when they are working.


My experience has mostly been that if an officer has a reasonable belief that a crime (any crime) has been committed and the person does not provide their identity the officer may take them into custody until they can determine identity another way.

Again, people are free to do what they want so long as they are prepared to accept the consequences, whether those consequences are legal or not.

Although state laws may vary in their wording, I think most will state that it is reasonable for any conservation officer to have a concern that any animal has been taken legally, both in the method taken and that it was taken under a proper license.

some of ya'll all along here keep missing the point that the GW already knew who Aaron was and what his name was. The GW was being a dick from the start.

quote:

12. When was the last time you were parked in a lot, and a police officer walked up to you and asked you to prove you own your car legally????

Every damn time you get stopped! License and registration, please. Ever heard of it??????

DTala, I think I got that clearly and they knew Aaron and that he would most likely treat them badly regardless. They probably knew he was going to say something more like, "I know my f***ing rights and I don't have to talk to you" rather than "The elk is legally tagged and I do not wish to answer any further questions".

quote:

Originally posted by DTala:
some of ya'll all along here keep missing the point that the GW already knew who Aaron was and what his name was. The GW was being a dick from the start.

There seems to have been some history between the two, so maybe Little Aaron was the one that started the dick measuring contest.

quote:

Originally posted by larrys:

quote:

12. When was the last time you were parked in a lot, and a police officer walked up to you and asked you to prove you own your car legally????

Every damn time you get stopped! License and registration, please. Ever heard of it??????

DTala, I think I got that clearly and they knew Aaron and that he would most likely treat them badly regardless. They probably knew he was going to say something more like, "I know my f***ing rights and I don't have to talk to you" rather than "The elk is legally tagged and I do not wish to answer any further questions".

Paragraph 1 - yep, heard of it. Only if they can articulate a crime you've committed / accused of?

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by larrys:

quote:

12. When was the last time you were parked in a lot, and a police officer walked up to you and asked you to prove you own your car legally????

Every damn time you get stopped! License and registration, please. Ever heard of it??????

DTala, I think I got that clearly and they knew Aaron and that he would most likely treat them badly regardless. They probably knew he was going to say something more like, "I know my f***ing rights and I don't have to talk to you" rather than "The elk is legally tagged and I do not wish to answer any further questions".

Paragraph 1 - yep, heard of it. Only if they can articulate a crime you've committed / accused of?

I committed NO crime......period!

quote:

Originally posted by lindy2:
You are correct, I should have said duty instead of right when speaking about officers with the caveat that officers do not lose their constitutional rights when they are working.


My experience has mostly been that if an officer has a reasonable belief that a crime (any crime) has been committed and the person does not provide their identity the officer may take them into custody until they can determine identity another way.

Again, people are free to do what they want so long as they are prepared to accept the consequences, whether those consequences are legal or not.

Although state laws may vary in their wording, I think most will state that it is reasonable for any conservation officer to have a concern that any animal has been taken legally, both in the method taken and that it was taken under a proper license.

I'd agree and again good post, but if you are accusing me of a crime, you must articulate the crime I am suspected of...not just accuse me of said crime because you think you can!! This is where knowing the law - is important!!! Because if a LEO is accusing you of a law that does not exist, is invalid!!

Of course, I was not there to see what happened. However, if a conservation officer was harassing you, and I have no reason to believe he wasn’t, I do not blame you a bit.

I think that taking your friend to a meeting was a good idea.

I’ve had mostly good experience with fish and game officers. However, I
did have one bad experience where a family member was falsely accused and
threatened. Fortunately, our justice system prevailed and the officer
looked like an idiot in court.

Relating what you have said, I do not blame you one bit!

Arrest and charge me or get the fuck outta my face ' cause I ain't answering any questions. BUT you better cross your "T" and dot your " I" cause my family is Law Dawgs and will sue your ass your bosses ass and the Dept's ass.

quote:

Originally posted by 2th doc:
Arrest and charge me or get the fuck outta my face ' cause I ain't answering any questions. BUT you better cross your "T" and dot your " I" cause my family is Law Dawgs and will sue your ass your bosses ass and the Dept's ass.

You are one bad motherfletcher with a keyboard, LOL!

Wonder how many times an average LEO will be threatened with a suit during a 20 year career? What is especially funny is the one threatening probably can't spell "lawyer".

I am not LEO though most my family is those that are not are indeed attorneys that makes for some interesting talk at family get togethers. One topic often mentioned is, 99.9% of the time is how easily people can be intimidated by a combination of the uniform, the situation and voice deflection BUT when you least expect it the .01% will not be. You've just met the .01%.

quote:

Originally posted by 2th doc:
I am not LEO though most my family is those that are not are indeed attorneys that makes for some interesting talk at family get togethers. One topic often mentioned is, 99.9% of the time is how easily people can be intimidated by a combination of the uniform, the situation and voice deflection BUT when you least expect it the .01% will not be. You've just met the .01%.

PS: Besides probably not being able to spell "lawyer", he also sucks at math and putting proper sentences together, LOL!!!

you may throw jabs at my math and writing skills that is of little concern to me...do you really think I do not know they are lacking? But what you and I both know is you met someone whom will not back down. Not because of ego like you but because my son died fighting for my right to my opinion. My advice to yo is tread softly around me asshole.
I can be found an if you truly are the sleuth you claim to be please do, I'll leave the porch light on for you.

quote:

Originally posted by 2th doc:
you may throw jabs at my math and writing skills that is of little concern to me...do you really think I do not know they are lacking? But what you and I both know is you met someone whom will not back down. Not because of ego like you but because my son died fighting for my right to my opinion. My advice to yo is tread softly around me asshole.
I can be found an if you truly are the sleuth you claim to be please do, I'll leave the porch light on for you.

I put in my time too back during Viet Nam so jerks like you can spout off, threaten people, etc. and then go crawl back in their hole! I also know that your bark is probably a lot worse than your bite like most little dogs! PS: Why the flock would I want to waste my time looking for a proven jackwad, LOL?!!!