Never said you could shoot the girl selling cookies because she wouldn't leave. I gave examples of crimes, which you can shoot for. I agree with most of you points, but they are speculating on specific circumstances.

However, these two are not quite accurate for NJ.

Quote:

3. It was 100% necessary to use lethal force. Why didn't you just grab a baseball bat?

4. The perp was armed. You better be darn sure that was a gun or knife in his hand and not a non-lethal tool he just used to break into your house.

For number 3, you are under no obligation to grab a bat to face someone with, lets say a crowbar or screwdriver. And those same two tools could be used to break into the house, so number 4 isn't quite right either because if someone is coming at you with a crowbar after breaking into your house, you certainly can shoot them.

I was giving an example about how the law views entering a house different from entering the woods. If you want to get into specifics about...well what if this, or what if that, we'll be here for days.

Which this isn't the time nor place to do so, (unless you have apples in your house and it's a bear you're shooting at ) soI'll let it rest.

My intent, which you understood,was simply to show howthe most cut and dry case will be subject to speculationby 12strangers who may have to decide whether the dead guy really was coming at you with the crowbar sincethey weren't there to see it.

But for the record, #4'sexplanationsaid non-lethal. A screwdriver or crowbarcan certainly deemed lethal.

I agree with you, and my intent with BT was to show there is a big difference between entering a house, and taking a walk across a field or in the woods. Basically, a guy walking across your field with a shot gun you cannot shoot, however, a guy walking across your living room with that same shotgun, you can. The whole thing was sidetracked.

As for number 4, you did say non-lethal, but you said a non-lethal tool used to break in to the house, and I just couldn't think of any tools that could be used to break in, but could not be considered lethal.

Have a good one.

I agree withthat statement 100%in that context. Especially about the whole thing being sidetracked.

We obviously will never agreeon the originalissue 100% but I'll try to at least get back to the original issue.

As I see it, you believe no warrantshould be necessary for property other than ones house, buildings etc. I understand that it makes a LE officers job harder to requirea warrant or at least propable cause to conduct a search.

I think we all agree that a persons home should have the highest level of protection from undue search and seizure. While I'm not advocating that samelevel of protection for the land around that house, I do believe that no one, including law enforcement should have the right to set foot onsomeones property just because they want to.The current law says they can. This case may or may not cause that to change. While I dont want a poacher to get off, I do beleive that the law in question doesnt afford enough rights to a property owner and gives a bit too much power to the GW. IMHO, there should be have to be some good reason for a GW to enter your property.If that occasionally make the officers job more challenging, so be it.

I Wishall of youhere a happy and prosperous new year! May the 2006 hunting season be your best ever!!

You guys made me read this whole thing. I just couldn't stop. If the laws were changed to keep a law enforcement officer from entering a property to preform an investigation, then we might as well hang it up, because most cases would go unsolved. If the investigation is under way and the evidence is out in the open, then I can't see any better probable cause. If this guy was in the right, it would have been a few questions, and off he goes. Most game wardens I see congregate in heavily used areas to check as many hunters as they can. It is much easier for the under numbered wardens to check more people. It wouldn't make sense to me that they would sneak through the woods like rambo to keep an eye on one guy either. I live in Idaho now, and almost all of the convictions(this is public land) are made from tips, we patrol our own mountains and use the poaching hotline to turn these poachers in. Sounds like the tipster in this case has done his public duty to me.

Judge:" Mr. Poacher, do you like apples?"
Poacher:"yes your honor, I like apples"
Judge:"conviction stands, now how do you like them apples?"

I am glad that baiting for bearsis legal here in Idaho, and apples do work rather well.

I never got around to building a compose bin for my apples and the bear was there when I came home for lunch.Is that against the law?People who are goanna do things that is not permitted have to look for loop holes to get around it being illegal and make it legal.
3 Men died and went to heaven.At the golden gate Peter met them.He asked the first man, Whats your IQ?The man said 180.Peter looked at him and said" youare a rocket scientist,The man said yes I am.
Peter looked at the second man and asked what is your IQ? The man said 160,Peter said you must work at a nuke plant.The man said yes I do.Peter asked the last man,What is your IQ? The man said 65.Peter looked at him and asked if he got his deer.

There is the old saying that in the American legal system it is better that 1000 guilty people go free than one innocent person be wrongly imprisioned. I think thata similarphilosophy should apply here. If requiring search warrants to enter private lands makes it much more difficult for game wardens to do their jobs, then so be it. I would prefer to err on the side of civil liberties.

Bravo Lanse!!!!

Exactly Lanse! Let em get a warrant. If there's a real reason, they can get one just like they need for your home. Maybe the standard doesnt need to be as high for open land but a warrant or probable cause should be required.

Actually, I would argue that the standard should be the same or even higher. If you need to demonstrate clear just cause to obtain a warrant to intrude on someone's property even to apprehend a dangerous criminal, I would hope that you need to be even more clear in demonstrating the need to intrude on property because of a dead bear. Not that a dead bear is a petty thing.