Hi Shotgun stalker,

Not intending to bash.....but my Dad is in his 70's......and really isn't happy with the nuisance of Social Security. So maybe we should knock off a bank or two....(after all, it's not Ft. Knox or anything).....and we'd just go on and put that money to use....rather than bother with Social Security.

My dad worked hard all his life....and it's not really like he shouldn't be entitled to some happiness at this time in his life. And not one penny would go to waste......I promise! And we'd knock them off only at night.....when no one is around....and no one could get hurt......we'd make sure of that! So I really don't see the harm to be done!

Use to tell my daughter.....the maximum effective range of an excuse.....zero meters!

P.S. We don't cheat on taxes either..........so you know we are really just ordinary good folk.[]

akbound, I agree with you and my question/comment was not pointed at you, only at some of those that seem to believe there is no room for an officer, regardless of his authority to examine the circumstances of a situation.

dep214, I'll try to respond to your question. I guess you never let somebody go with a warning for say speeding or warned a bunch of teenagers to stay away from someplace they shouldn't have been instead of hauling them in? You never wrote a ticket for 73 mph in a 55 mph zone instead of the 80 the guy was doing because you knew it would be the difference in a fine he could afford and learn his lesson (perhaps) instead of losing his license and possibly his job?
When zero tolerance for anything is utilized instead of common sense and perhaps even a bit of compassion, everybody loses, even the officer.

Hey guys,

I'm not being personal about any of this argument.....and I'm certainly not taking any of it that way either. Even though I will frequently argue a point vehemently....and pointedly....which has the effect of seeming harsh even when it is not meant that way. And I do honestly believe that officers should have lattitude to use their judgement when enforcing infractions. (Otherwise we'd end up with the same kind on nonsense that "zero tolerance" has brought to the public school system!) So I most decidely come down on the side of allowing LE to use their experience, judgement, and discretion during enforcement, assuming consistency in application to all persons. (If you force an LE officer.....or anyone else for that matter......to use a "hammer" as their only tool.....pretty soon all problems start to "look like nails".) I am all for exercising common sense!

I have met far too many "hunters" that seem to believe that poaching is not REALLY a crime. And all too frequently attempt to justify it with stories of "suffering and misery".....when in my experience it has actually been done by "scofflaws" that could care less what the game law is. Additionally these same people in my experience have little or no difficulty in supporting habits such as smoking, drinking, spending on "toys", etc. Only when it comes time to buy the groceries.....and pay the bills.....do they seem to "have trouble earning enough money". That has been my experience!

You have to question a person's judgement when they are telling you all the financail horror stories of trying to raise a family with "X" number of children....and follow up by telling you they can't, won't, haven't.......been able to "hold a job". (Well........why the H**L NOT?) For that matter.....you brought those children into this world....find and keep two jobs! Doesn't give you any time to play or relax......should of thought of that....before you dropped your drawers to conceive another child! It doesn't get much simpler than that. A little individual responsibility goes an awful long ways! And as a society.....it da*n well past the time we start insisting that individuals exercise some!

P.S. Hey Coastie.......I didn't mean to sound as if I was being "beligerent or offended".....I wasn't. And I do understand a significant portion of what most of the arguments have been. (And I most assuredly....think the exercise of discretion and common sense....is a must!) But some of these guys are still throwing out "the same old and tired" arguments that may well have had validity generations ago. But they no longer hold water! (It is NOT a matter of Poach or starve. It's a matter of getting off their backsides and earn their keep...and when truly downtrodden....ask the appropriate agency for assistance. And "trim the excesses in their lifestyle. I'd like to have Lobster every night.....but I don't. We learn to live within our means.) And that does not include the "right" to steal from others!

It is the parents responsibility to feed the kid. I would let him get away with it a few times or for a little while but I would talk to the police or DHS and let someone know whats going on with the parents.

coastie,
are you saying that i have no common sense.?you never even came close to answering the question.it had so much jibberish i could not understand it.it was and still is a very simple question.you catch the boy and just warn him.as a police officer you are pwerless to do anything anyway.it is a game law and up to the local game warden to enforce that law..anyway!.you catch the boy and let him go with a warning and good talk.a real poacher sees you do this.now if the poacher is caught by you he will use this against you in court.there is no selective enforcement of tha laws.you will be unable to prosecute this man.he can tell his other poaching buddies and it grows.where does it stop.when enforcing the law you can use compassion and common sense and let someone go.if someone sees you let someone go then what?that officer can even be prosecuted for not enforcing the law.
now why do you suggest i have no common sense?

I'd have to disagree here! As far as the officer being in trouble for not inforcing the law. I would think that just as a traffic officer can let you off with a warning, an officer could choose to let this kid go with a warning!
I don't think that he would be doing this kid a favor by ignoring his poaching though! He needs to find out what is going on in the home! It is not the kids responsibility to provide for the family, its the parents! I will also stand by my statement that if the kid is allowed to break these laws, it can lead to much larger problems later on!
I also agree with Akbound, this is 2004, not the 1930's! There is a hell of a lot of difference in these two time periods! And again I say, "too proud to ask for assistance or take an odd job, but not too proud to steal or teach your kid to steal!" Something is really wrong with that picture!

dep214, my response is written in everyday English, there is no gibberish. Perhaps the parallel I was attempting to show is too much for you to understand. In short, there is no reason an officer, any officer, regardless of whether he is a Game Warden or a Texas Ranger can't give a warning when he feels that would be the best approach to a particular situation. If you never in your thirty year career used your discretion in a situation, then perhaps you answered your own question. I know that some things are not considered to be warnable offenses, in those situations, you let the court straighten it out but if by using a little tact and human decency you can do your job without going that route, everybody is better off.
Just as a matter of curiosity, how would a casual observer know that you had let this individual go with a warning?
The warnings I used to give out were good for a year, if the individual was stopped again within that year for the same warnable offense, they were hammered.

I would confront the young man and his parents before making a choice. That is if it was an option in my job. There may be rare reasons for letting thier actions slip by. However I would have to find out what those reasons were and not let a violation of the law continue. In many states Game animals thriugh different programs can be provided for the real poor people. This said it is doing the family no real long term good to allow the violation to continue. I have no poblem with a landowner taking an occasioal deer or such if they are rendering damage to the cropland and I think the wardens around here feel the same. I grew up in a different time where out on the farm we did hunt most all year around for food for the table. There were not many real seasons for hunting back then where I lived.

Just thought I'de put my two cents worth in. I don't condone breaking the law but there are still parts of this country that are poor and some people who are too proud to ask for a handout. I would have less of a problem with someone taking small game to put a meal on their table than I have with people who shoot animals just to be shooting something even if it's legal. I mean I hear people talk about shooting coyotes or groundhogs and such, not to eat but because they consider them a nuisence. I have a couple of older people that Iv'e known all my life that have a hard time getting by on their social security so I try to kill an extra deer or two for them each year,not poached we get 12 tags here in georgia, and it makes a differance. So if they are poaching just because they are too lazy to work then that would bother me but if they are going through some hard times and kill something to eat then I could turn a blind eye.