As a Juror, would you vote to convict someone that killed a wolf?

[CorbLand]

It would depend on when the trial is...

Hunting season, no, I wouldnt because I would find any excuse to not be on the jury.
Not hunting season, also no, because I am a kill em type when it comes to wolves and wouldnt make it on the jury.

 

[mlob1one]

This actually happened in Utah. DWR investigated, and no charges were brought.

If he thought it was a coyote, he's a free man.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[Jmort1754]

Hell no I am not voting to convict someone.

 

[stanginthe11s]

I get a chuckle when I picture some of you guys breaking 5 laws on the way to convict someone for a law that benefits no one and that no one wanted.
you can mistake a person for an elk and go home but god forbid you mistake a dog for a dog, off with your head.
this country is sooo twisted.

that being said, I'll have covid on the trial date.

 

[Hnthrdr]

I like that we have a lot of black and white types here. My brother is a cop, he is like that although spend enough time around law and order types and I think things get really grey.

Here is a question for you… say a guy makes a claim, a benign one, it’s outlandish, but doesn’t actually hurt any humans, it does challenge a narrative being set forth by the current system. But it is against the law. He is brought before a judge and the judge is reminded that the law was broken and penalty required is death. So they string him up on a cross. Law and order yay!!! (Remember laws are laws and were broken!) you can swap out the Jewish fella, for a young black man who looked at a white lady wrong about 75 years ago. Lots of laws lots of interpretations lots of people are not “just”

 

[KHNC]

I would give them the same conviction muley freak got for his first 2 poaching charges.

AND the blowmars.

 

[t_carlson]

No. Jury nullification.

Time to quit allowing people who are intent on destroying everything good the chance to wage asymmetrical warfare against us.

WWALD (what would a lefty do?)

 

[Zimm21]

I wo

I read some chatter online that some people wouldnt vote to convict someone who killed a wolf.

If you were called for jury duty, would you vote to convict?

I wouldn’t make it into the jury

 

[Finn16]

I am too biased on this one and wouldn't make the cut as a juror.

 

[Matt5266]

As much as I dislike the wolf situation ( I live in Idaho) I do believe you need to remain impartial. It's the only way to make sure everyone receives a fair trial.

Imagine it you was you or your family on trial for something and someone decided it was a automatic yes or no because of their beliefs.

 

[IdahoBeav]

If we were to all be honest, we would never be selected for that jury. The defense and prosecution would ask if anyone would have a problem being impartial regarding wolves, and the prosecution would want you off the jury, just as the defense wouldn't want any animal lovers on it either. Nonetheless, if I were able to be impartial and on the jury and if the defendant pled not guilty, unless there was ballistics and DNA evidence, I am voting not guilty. There are a lot of people that are willing to shoot a wolf. I wouldn't pin it on a guy without guaranteeing evidence.

 

[Overdrive]

I wouldn't make the Jury, was released at the last Jury summons sitting as the 12th Juror because I was Pro Law Enforcement. 3 of the top 12 were released for the same reason.

I would place a bet that if/when something like this happens the prosecution will make a motion for a change of venue to get it into Federal court in Denver instead of some small rural courthouse.

If it was someone mistaking a wolf for a coyote, well there's no laws against being stupid. People shoot Moose often mistaking them for Elk.

 

[Loo.wii]

I read some chatter online that some people wouldnt vote to convict someone who killed a wolf.

If you were called for jury duty, would you vote to convict?

what wolf? thats not a wolf

 

[RyanT26]

As much as I dislike the wolf situation ( I live in Idaho) I do believe you need to remain impartial. It's the only way to make sure everyone receives a fair trial.

Imagine it you was you or your family on trial for something and someone decided it was a automatic yes or no because of their beliefs.

Happens all the time my friend.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Too many folks walk around these days and forget that this country was started by a some massively illegal activity that was the result of a 3% tax on luxury goods without what the locals consider adequate representation…. Now I’m not saying wolves are my line in the sand. Far from it. But I think every American man should think about our founding fathers every once in a long while and remember where we came from and what our “ taxation without representation” is. Not to get too academic on you all, but “common sense” and “farmers letters” would be some great light reading. Remember not all of our rights come from an office in Washington or an awkward Californian dude who lives in boulder

 

[19hunt92]

No. Jury nullification.

Time to quit allowing people who are intent on destroying everything good the chance to wage asymmetrical warfare against us.

WWALD (what would a lefty do?)

You beat me to it, in the chance of completely derailing this thread: i am seeing a ton of posts now over "how do we fight back" "how do i get a voice" "how do I correct issue XYZ"
Sadly the opposition is playing by completely different rules, law or not, "they" do not FEEL like what the group is doing is illegal, so no law precedes that and they walk free because thier peers THINK what they did was justified regardless of the law.

In contrast, us here are still acting in the binds of the law and respect the process to enact or remove those laws. To the extent that if another fellow hunter breaks those laws, we will agree they are punished even if we do not agree with the law ourselves.
I AM NOT advocating to act like the "others" that seem to be against us hunters but it really is an interesting mental excersize...takes a moment to think about, internalize, game plan, rethink, game plan, rethink and then act...whatever that may be we HAVE to be active

 

[Flyjunky]

As much as I dislike the wolf situation ( I live in Idaho) I do believe you need to remain impartial. It's the only way to make sure everyone receives a fair trial.

Imagine it you was you or your family on trial for something and someone decided it was an automatic yes or no because of their beliefs.

I understand what you’re saying about impartiality but it seems to be more common lately to have judges/prosecutors deciding laws on their own bias. We have a few highly publicized trials going on where the judge is openly and enthusiastically displaying their bias while prosecutors are being praised for their stated vendettas. How do those actions not trickle down to jurors? We also hear all the time about a judge being pro this or pro that….shouldn’t it be pro law?

 

[JackOfAllTrades]

I wonder how many of these soy boys would love to convict a January 6th "insurrectionist"?
There is no denying how many feds were in the crowd, and the fact that they were let in.

 

[TheGDog]

While I'd LIKE to be able to say, that I'd follow the Judges instructions, and look at it from the standpoint of how the governing law is written regarding the matter....

I'm reminded of all the "political activism" a lot of these stupid-A Judges have been doing lately, and with THAT thought in mind.... I juuuuust might be swayed to not care about interpreting the facts of the case as per the letter of the law governing this activity.

At least not out here in CA where they routinely disregard the 2A laws when THEY see fit too. I'd almost see it as my Civic-Duty... to spit in their faces by menacingly looking them in their eyes while handing down a not-guilty verdict.

 

[thinhorn_AK]

No, But I would also never in a million years choose a career path that forced me to act against my own will/morals because "its my job".

once I hear people say "it's my job" to excuse their shitty behavior I lose all respect for them.