[Deleted]

[Deleted User]

[Deleted by Admins]

[wis_rifle_hunter]

thats just sad. they had to evidence that he shot it with a rifle. like the father said its just jealousy

[virginiashadow]

Does the state have to show some sort of "overwhelming" evidence to contradict the hunter's statement that he shot the buck with a bow? I see no evidence that would allow the state to confiscate his buck.

I guess anonymous informants are a powerful breed in today's society.

[Rob/PA Bowyer]

I'll be straight up, if I take a buck of any recognition the very first thing I'm going to do is call a local warden and have him come out and confirm it was all legit. I'll show him the stand, the blood trail etc...

The jealousy of people never seizes to amaze me.

[StruttinGobbler3]

i read that story in a magazine about three months ago, made me sick

[shrewbeer]

The things that article neglected to mention were all the evidence against him. It only listed the evidence for defense. Seems like a biased article, and impossible to tell what the real story is.
the third article states "In a hearing that took less than 10 minutes, Armando lost that appeal as well after one of the two judges present insinuated that each of Armando's three witnesses had lied under oath about tracking and recovering the buck.", and the only evidence listed that was given at the original trial was that some nobody biologist suggested that the arrow wound was done after death.
If in fact this is all the evidence that was against him, those judges should be disbarred. But there is no way in hell they convicted him just on that. There is much more to this story.

[badassbowtech]

Man that just sad. Again there are some people that need to have their butts kicked. You don't do this to someone. But the system is corrupt to the core and there is really nothing we can do. I think that is what is such a crime. You will never get the government to say they were wrong. Never. And that's what it comes down to.

[castuckey]

ORIGINAL: shrewbeer

The things that article neglected to mention were all the evidence against him. It only listed the evidence for defense. Seems like a biased article, and impossible to tell what the real story is.
the third article states "In a hearing that took less than 10 minutes, Armando lost that appeal as well after one of the two judges present insinuated that each of Armando's three witnesses had lied under oath about tracking and recovering the buck.", and the only evidence listed that was given at the original trial was that some nobody biologist suggested that the arrow wound was done after death.
If in fact this is all the evidence that was against him, those judges should be disbarred. But there is no way in hell they convicted him just on that. There is much more to this story.

I agree with you. We are only hearing the Defense side of the story. I would like to know more from the prosecution side before I draw a conlusion.

[silverskin]

Funny... in NY state confidential informants are frowned upon in court, you need secondary witness' and other circumstantial evidence for a conviction. There has to be more in this case the papers and media aren't sharing. Bummer though, especially if it was taken legally!

[V8Ranger]

informant -><-me.. unreal what somepeople have become