RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

And they are now what? Older and still dumb. Come on, man! If the UC would have jumped off a cliff - would they? If he shot himself in the foot - would they? If he raped - would they?

It was their poor decisions and they can't be justified by him encouraging them.

As to his conduct when UC, there very well have been a court order for him to do certain things in the scope of his investigative efforts.

Another thing. It's just stupid to start doing things like these in the company or to the knowledge of folks who aren't family or LONG TIME friends. I said long time friends - not aqaintences.

I think if someone like this showed up in the lives of me, my friends or family and started encouraging or doing illegal things like this - I would personallyarrest him. He could cry all he wanted to about being LE, I'd deliver him to the State Police or probobly USFWS. He could then tell it to them or explain itto the judge.

Come on, some guy outta the blue? Not a local? Duh!

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

Enforcement officers undercover have protectional laws (via court order, or statue)that do allow them to do what is deemed necessary to maintaing cover, and prevent a risk of life/limb from revealing one's self. Understandably there are some limits (like killing someone, unless the cop is in an extremely unique situation, like infiltraring Osama's camp:D).

I believe undercover cops have even been documented as ingesting illicit drugs, and engaging in propositioned sexual acts legally.I wish I could name the statue, but cases like this have precedents in the supreme court, and are rarely questioned by defense attorneys anymore.

Entrapment is sometimes able to be determined, but that rarely is the case. It's often a last ditch effort for someone who has committed the crimes, and are blaming law enforcement when in actuality the officers were well within the boundaries of the law. A good example of this are the prostitution stings where a female officer hits the corner, and propositions johns. It's well within their legal rights to do so, and is not entrapment.

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

First of all the case I was talking about was different from the case in question.

The case in question is still being worked on I believe. However if the
warden was in fact drunk driving or shooting from any motor vehicle then
he clearly violated the law. For as far as bear trapping if it was in season
and the wood duck was in season with the right permits,stamps, and etc.
what would be wrong? Here you can shoot or trap bear leagely same with the wood duck. But the seal is a federal offense so again why wait? The seal would certainly tie those guys up for a long time. But if the warden
was shooting at game from a motor vehicle he is clearly in the wrong. If
he was drunk driving he was clearly wrong. I also believe this case has more going on than what is being said. So it is IMO that both sides are
wrong and both needs to be addressed.


Also if you think a warden or anyone for that matters was drunk driving and run into my wife and kids or myself that
they would be above the law THINK AGAIN !

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

I think most or your questions have already been answered here Phil in regards to what can be allowed for the law enforcement officer. You seem to be very passionate about this particular subject. Did you know the perpetrators as well? You seem to be drawing a lot of conclusions (drunk warden, etc.) and finding more fault with the officer than the illegal huntersso I thought you must know more than we've seen so far.

I am unsure but would be inclined to initially find guilt with the poachers especially if they have a history (as vt pointed out) of this stuff. I would like to see a link to a story if possible.

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

I agree. It seems like you find guilt against the law enforcement personnel without proof. Yet, you expect the supposed law-violators to be subject to being innocent until proven guilty.

Sounds a little more than biasness.

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

It is irrelevant whether or not you believe in it. Entrapment is illegal. The only question is whether or not the officer is guilty of it. If the court decides that he is, then the charges that resulted from it will be dropped and and rightly so. That's how our system works. I agree with it!

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

I'm sorry, but from the information given by vt, I think these guys are probably very guilty and figure that entrapment was probably not part of the deal. I am glad you were not part of it vt.

vt, I take it you are not speaking hypothetically here but are claiming that A LOT of violations were committed

Sounds like it had some high profile for that area.


vt, please know that my opinions about this case are in no way directed towards you. just trying to be objective.

I, myself have got friends from the old days back home who could easily get caught breaking a few game laws with regularity.Still, if they get caught, theyprobabaly deserved it. Most poachers get away because of our lack of enforcement to start with.

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

Why is it irrelevant? 99% of the time its not true. We should all be responsable for our actions. Entrapment is just a lameexcuse for the bad guys.

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

I must be misunderstood some where ? I was simply going by what vtbuck
had stated. No I do not know the perpetrators and feel no passion towards poachers doing what has been said here! I did how ever state
that in IMO if the fact be stated here are correct both sides would be wrong . If in fact the seal mentioned was shot it was clearly a federal violation. That's enough to put those guys away for quite some time.
And it should of been done right then.
I also said if the warden had done what has been stated he would of been
wrong also. And that is that! Everyone pays a price for being wrong !

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

It is irrelevant whether or not you believe in it becausethere arealready laws that makeentrapment illegal. That's a fact so your belief dosn't matter, it ISthe law.

O.K. but the 1% of the time it is true then the leo broke the law and the charges that resulted from the illegal act are dropped. Again, that's the law. Are you really trying to tell me that a full 1% of the time game wardens arrest people illegally?

Iflaw breakers are the bad guys then leo's guilty of entrapment are law breakers and therefore the bad guys right?