fake deer encounter.

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by hal53

Geez CS, how many times did you shoot at the stupid thing?????

Geez Hal...I always correctly identify the animals I shoot.

[J D]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

So the child that sneaks a cookie [falls to temptation] is a criminal?
The man that falls to temptation and lays with a jezzabell is a criminal?
What twisted thinking....holier than thou art thy.

If my child is caught sneaking a cookie they will be punished for being dishonest. It is how they learn right from wrong

As for the man who falls for temptation from a jezzabell as you put it. If he is in another relationship odds are it won't go well with his other half.

It is life and you are responsible for your actions.

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

Come on potty....is the little kid a criminal?? The nuns would leave plates of freshly baked cookies on the table within reach of the hungry children...are they inducing them to sneak a cookie...or is the little turd a criminal that should be punished if he sneaks a cookie?

I don't know what did the local police say when you called on him ?

Such a terrible exampke you gave..... I sure the cookie was pre bought...where the deer is completely stealing...

How many times did you shoot it? Hal and I have asked twice now?

[58thecat]

cookies, fast cars, hot women, ahhh the temptation, please deliver me from this evil world......take the cookie, steal the car, slap the hinny of the hot woman....guilty! Here come the consequences! I bet you don't get the hot woman in the drivers seat of your new acquired car with the scent of cookies on your breath! or maybe you do.

[mudbug]

I've talked to some CO's about these decoys and they really get a kick out of the guys that just keep on shooting at the decoy and get more and more puzzled as to why the thing doesn't fall over. Some of the decoys look like a screen door by the end of the season If you follow the regs and rules it won't be you they're laughing at

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

Come on potty....is the little kid a criminal?? The nuns would leave plates of freshly baked cookies on the table within reach of the hungry children...are they inducing them to sneak a cookie...or is the little turd a criminal that should be punished if he sneaks a cookie?

Not a criminal but enforcing the rules at that age may help prevent the child from becoming one. In most homes I would like to think that if the child knew that he wasn't allowed to take the cookie, he'd be punished if he did it. Isn't that how you teach kids the difference between right and wrong?

Life is full of temptations. I don't understand this argument that if something is tempting you shouldn't be punished for breaking the rules/law.

[st99]

x2

Originally Posted by PRO4X

I'd say it's right. If you're going to shoot at a fake trophy animal, you're going to try it on a real one. The real hunters out there that abide by the law while hunting will look at it with binos, take a picture, but not shoot. It is a good way to weed out some of the dumb@$$es out there that figure if they can drive fast enough it's ok to do it.

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

So the child that sneaks a cookie [falls to temptation] is a criminal?
The man that falls to temptation and lays with a jezzabell is a criminal?
What twisted thinking....holier than thou art thy.

So when you go to the store and the shelves are full of items that you could buy or you could steal, if you steal them are you a victim of entrapment or are you just a common criminal.

[Zuludog]

If you shoot one of the decoys in a sting you're a criminal, it seems pretty cut and dry. As far as temptation goes, I wouldn't shoot a deer after dark whether it was the Hansen buck or just a spiker. The law is really straight forward that, doing so would be illegal.

Now send some of those decoys to Edson and catch those psycho's.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

I agree...it isn't entrapment any more than dressing a cop up like a hooker is.

The difference being that soliciting sex for money is a crime regardless of the fake hookers real occupation and shooting a decoy is not a crime under any other circumstance.

So wrong BDB and you know it.
It's pretty weak to ignore the obvious for the sake of your argument.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by Donkey Oatey

You do know that crime and being found guilty is about intent right? Mens Rea? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

Bah its really not worth it sometimes.

Wrong...its about a guilty mind or a guilty act (mens rea and actus reus)...maybe read your own link next time.

Big difference.

What would happen if the court could not be satisfied that the "poachers| intent was anything more than shooting a decoy?
For that matter the legal definition of poaching is...

The illegal shooting, trapping, or taking of game or fish from private or public property.

So...how is it poaching if no animal was taken?

By your statement if a guy puts the peddle to the metal intent on exceeding the speed limit but...leaves the car in first gear and does not exceed the limit...he is guilty of an offence regardless of whether he actually exceeded the speed limit or not.

That said... my argument is not that in this instance the pracitice is unacceptable.
My argument is that it pushes a boundary and one that we are perilously close to crossing.
Something that must be guarded against.

Its a fairly scuzzy practice but effective and acceptable but... over time it might well morph into something unacceptable.

We need to be mindful of where things like this can lead us.

An example?

drinking and driving laws.
It made sense to nail folks as soon as they opperated a motor vehicle while impaired.
It did not make sense to convict guys who were just sleeping it off on the back seat of their car.

And...that has happened because of people like you (thought police) who jump to conclusions and assume intent rather than focus upon what has actually occured.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by norwestalta

I agree but my thoughts are I'd rather see them out there getting a animal rather then a welfare check. I suppose that if they are to lazy or can't work chances are they won't be in the bush.

I think there was atime when it ocuured and was reasonable.
Personally I would be inclined to give someone impoverished a break.
One deer more or less is of little consequence and people need to eat but... I just do not see that being the case very often.

Lets face it... the vast majority of poaching is done either for profit or by guys that can afford to hunt but choose to cheat.
Most poachers are probably guilty of all sorts of other petty offences and are not exactly what most of uis would call good neighbours.
Most are probably inconsiderate of others and the law in general.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

Wrong...its about a guilty mind or a guilty act (mens rea and actus reus)...maybe read your own link next time.

Big difference.

What would happen if the court could not be satisfied that the "poachers| intent was anything more than shooting a decoy?
For that matter the legal definition of poaching is...

The illegal shooting, trapping, or taking of game or fish from private or public property.

So...how is it poaching if no animal was taken?


By your statement if a guy puts the peddle to the metal intent on exceeding the speed limit but...leaves the car in first gear and does not exceed the limit...he is guilty of an offence regardless of whether he actually exceeded the speed limit or not.

That said... my argument is not that in this instance the pracitice is unacceptable.
My argument is that it pushes a boundary and one that we are perilously close to crossing.
Something that must be guarded against.

Its a fairly scuzzy practice but effective and acceptable but... over time it might well morph into something unacceptable.

We need to be mindful of where things like this can lead us.

An example?

drinking and driving laws.
It made sense to nail folks as soon as they opperated a motor vehicle while impaired.
It did not make sense to convict guys who were just sleeping it off on the back seat of their car.

And...that has happened because of people like you (thought police) who jump to conclusions and assume intent rather than focus upon what has actually occured.

Skipping important information to make your case, again....

BTW, People shooting at decoys are not charged with "Poaching".

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

This defense will not work.

From the Wildlife Act.

"(6) Where

(a) a person has the intent to hunt, and believes or appears to believe that the person is hunting,

(b) what the person is purporting to hunt is actually a representation of a wildlife animal that has been set out by a wildlife officer or wildlife guardian, and

(c) having regard to the time when, the location where and any other relevant circumstances under which the activity takes place, the activity would, if that representation were a real wildlife animal of the kind represented, constitute an act of hunting that would be an offence against a hunting provision of this Act,

then the person is deemed for the purposes of this Act to be hunting such a wildlife animal and is guilty of an offence against that provision."

[Stonegoat]

I'm amazed that people are actually trying to argue that shooting a decoy illegally is somehow not that bad, or that entrapment is involved.

If you're the kind of asswipe who thinks it's ok to shoot animals illegally, I have nothing but disdain for you!

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

What would happen if the court could not be satisfied that the "poachers| intent was anything more than shooting a decoy?

Ok so the shooter knows it's a fake deer and his intention is to shoot a fake deer and not a real deer because he would never shoot a real deer illegally cause he is a righteous sportsman that would never consider poaching. Why is he then knowingly and intentfully destroying property that he is fully aware doesn't belong to him with a firearm. I believe there are also criminal charges that can also be applied. Either way that is something only an idiot would conceive as a good idea.

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Skipping important information to make your case, again....

BTW, People shooting at decoys are not charged with "Poaching".

So what are they charged with?

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

I don't agree that the decoy wouldn't / couldn't make a difference by inducing someone to take a shot they wouldn't normally. Temptation is a normal human vice...put a big enough temptation out there and you will catch people falling to the temptation.

Putting "temptation" out there is to catch people who are already committing these crimes. I am not sure what the numbers are for poachers, car thieves, etc but I believe for shoplifters, it is 50, meaning they have stolen at least 50 times before they are caught. These "decoys" whether they are deer, cars, whatever are usual catching habitual criminals not first timers.

[RBI]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

Ok so the shooter knows it's a fake deer and his intention is to shoot a fake deer and not a real deer because he would never shoot a real deer illegally cause he is a righteous sportsman that would never consider poaching. Why is he then knowingly and intentfully destroying property that he is fully aware doesn't belong to him with a firearm. I believe there are also criminal charges that can also be applied. Either way that is something only an idiot would conceive as a good idea.

x 1000%

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

So when you go to the store and the shelves are full of items that you could buy or you could steal, if you steal them are you a victim of entrapment or are you just a common criminal.

If they put the items out with the intention of you stealing them, it's entrapment. So you are a victim of entrapment and a thief because for whatever reason you could not resist the temptation. :-). See how simple it is.

[Loper]

All a surrogate deer does is put opportunity and enforcement in the same place at the same time. What happens next is up to the passerby.

[Zuludog]

Originally Posted by Loper

All a surrogate deer does is put opportunity and enforcement in the same place at the same time. What happens next is up to the passerby.

^^ Exactly. It doesn't get much simpler than this.

[280Hunter]

Originally Posted by J D

The point is if you are tempted enough to shoot a big robo deer odds are you would shoot the real version of it under the same situation.

And if that is the case you deserve what you get.

Entrapment or not you made the a bad choice and it shows your true colours.

Well said and 100% true.

[albertadave]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

If they put the items out with the intention of you stealing them, it's entrapment. So you are a victim of entrapment and a thief because for whatever reason you could not resist the temptation. :-). See how simple it is.

What does this mean??? Seriously, what are you talking about? How would a store owner "put out" items, items that he owns, in the store that he owns, with the "intention of you stealing them"? Think about it. Doesn't even make sense. lololol Wouldn't the "intention to steal" be all your's CS??? How many times did you shoot the decoy CS?? lmao

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

If they put the items out with the intention of you stealing them, it's entrapment. So you are a victim of entrapment and a thief because for whatever reason you could not resist the temptation. :-). See how simple it is.

Just teaing ya CS, I hear ya. The guy in the vid proves what you are sayin'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApHRFM2NI9s


A bunch of good 'ol boys entrapped by the buck....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ40438vEAw

[rem338win]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

If they put the items out with the intention of you stealing them, it's entrapment. So you are a victim of entrapment and a thief because for whatever reason you could not resist the temptation. :-). See how simple it is.

Ok, so put entrapment to bed. It doesn't fit so stop being willfully ignorant. You and BDB both. No more strawman arguments now either.
Please don't make me explain what inducement is.
Stop being so simple.

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

If they put the items out with the intention of you stealing them, it's entrapment. So you are a victim of entrapment and a thief because for whatever reason you could not resist the temptation. :-). See how simple it is.

By your logic if a store has an anti theft program implemented and is actively looking for shoplifters then you would consider all the items in the store as bait for an entrapment sting and therefore a shoplifting charge should be null and void?

You funny!