|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
WY: Jury Decides Moose Kill was Self-Defense
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
After a one-day trial in state court, six jurors returned a verdict of “not guilty” for Chauncy G. Goodrich of Pinedale, who testified he shot and killed a young bull moose in self-defense. Goodrich, who lives along Pine Creek on Willow Lake Road, was charged with the high misdemeanor of illegally taking big game, a moose, without a license on July 24, 2017. Wyoming Game and Fish’s Pinedale wildlife supervisor John Lund and wardens Bubba Haley and Jordan Kraft investigated the moose kill after Goodrich texted Haley about his actions, they testified.
|
| Comment by:
mickey
(1/22/2018)
|
He tried to push the moose away from his yard, which not only is his right, but wardens have provided him with assistance in pushing moose out of his yard in the past.
This time, the moose charged him and he shot it. Then he immediately contacted a game warden.
So, naturally, the state put him on trial for illegally harvesting game.
Does anybody else find this to be an incredible waste of law enforcement resources? |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(1/22/2018)
|
| Of course it is a waste....what else would one reasonably expect from government? |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
