This man gets it too.

BOBO SMH, I posted earlier, but found a better one where you can read the court documents. Maybe, just maybe a hunter is a DA and it isn't a federal conspiracy. Lying to Feds is it's own charge.

Again....Zimbabwe has asked for extradition, even though they haven't formerly charged the Doc, it is prudent for the fed to at least look into this, get his side of the story before subjecting an American to their justice system, that is by rule under the extradition treaty. I'm personally glad that under the pressure, the fed hasn't just wrapped him in a bow and sent him to Zimbabwe to possibly be the martyr for the lib crying game. If he did break a law, then he should stand for it IMO.
Read this one and see if it helps

http://heavy.com/news/2015/07/walter-pal...ta-dentist-dds/

No I'm just curious that's all on the bear deal. I couldn't find the court docs. It's just interesting that the Feds convicted him for lying... Not poaching, which would of been Lacy if he crossed states lines. He would of also had restitution fees etc. yet everyone says poaching...I can't see all the docs it stops on page two.



But any way you can't be extricated with out being charged. Not going to happen.

I just find it hard that they can't find him when local police are looking in to death threats, he has spokesman given public statements etc.

Hmm, court doc's are in the link I posted above??

Seems he had a bear tag for a specific area, then killed one 40 miles away, transported and registered it as killed at the area he had a tag for, that's the gist of it. In the link above, much better detail along with the court/case filings.

All Zimbabwe has to do is charge the guy, wouldn't take but a stroke of the pen.

It won't go past page 2 of the docs for me. Actually 1.5 of the docs.

Still weird if he poached why it's doesn't including a poaching type charge or restitution etc.. Weird deal.. A lot of open questions on that.

Not charged yet

IDK, could have been hunting on federal land, but I believe the way it read it was state land? Could have been charged by the state? I know he plead to a Felony charge though (the lying charge)

If you can read #5 on the plea agreement, it states if he plead guilty to the felony, other charges wouldn't occur. That may be why you don't see a poaching charge as far as the fed is concerned.

It's definitely a plea deal... Which means more to the story.

Even on federal land it's state game laws. Feds get involved for Lacy, migratory, Indian land and illegal selling...usually

Plea deals mean there's more to the story alright-they mean that if it went to trial it would be a helluva lot worse.

Nope.

It means that both parties choose appeasement via a lessor (risk)charge.

Government wasn't 100% they could convict on a higher charge and defendent choose less risk and settled.

I've seen both ends of it. Seen some BS charges before also on the fed side that where intended from the get go to push for a settlement on a lessor charge.

Folks don't plead guilty to appease law enforcement Bobo. They plead guilty because they are guilty and it will be worse on them if they go to trial. Period. If the charges are BS you go to trial.

Govt. accepts pleas because they can't try every case and to move things along. Risk of loss rarely enters into it from their perspective. Especially with lesser charges like this.

Agree with NP, otherwise they would just plead not guilty. It is just easier and quicker for the court docket to offer a plea deal and the terms are usually much better than the defendant would get at trial.

Dennis, I've seen both sides.

Seen government plea down because they weren't sure they could get a jury all in "Had a DA straight up tell me that" . Also seen guys take a misdemeanor because they didn't think the risk of a felony conviction was worth it even being they where innocent.

Jury of your peers isn't always your peers.

Looks like I'm just less quick to judge. I'd want more details on a lieing or license violation before I'd call it poaching

Have you read the facts of the bear conviction Bobo?

It is about as cut and dried as you can get.

1)Shot a bear 40 miles from the legal area he had a tag for;
2)Took the bear to his assigned area and filled out the tag falsely that it was in the proper area;
3)Contiued to lie to federal officers when questioned about it. Knew he was lying.

HE SWORE TO ALL THIS IN OPEN COURT. Swore he was guilty of the violation. Swore he lied to cover it up. Swore he knew he was lying. Swore he lied in an attempt to avoid prosecution.

No I said that two pages ago I couldn't read the docs. Only gives 1.5 pages of 3 pages.

If it's that clear cut why not restitution, etc... I'm just asking questions that's all. Apparently they where having a good day and cut him some slack.

Seen both ways so why not ask questions

That there is funny.

No restitution was part of the plea deal, one of the reasons he likely jumped all over a felony conviction. This was just the Federal case, I haven't heard if the state DOW took any action on their part.

But just going by the facts of his actions, he knowingly poached that bear.

I don't think they where just having a good day, he got a felony when I bet the poaching charge wouldn't have been IDK

http://news.yahoo.com/hunter-cecil-lion-tells-afp-did-nothing-wrong-142129760.html
The PH has come out denying they did anything wrong and had secured the necessary paperwork and permission to hunt this lion. They didn't know this lion had a tracking collar and the PH never even heard of Cecil the lion, much like everyone else in Zimbabwe. The media can't get their facts straight on this and are coming out with all of these accusations. I think this story is beginning to unravel and will turn out to be a smear campaign by animal rights activists. It was probably a disgruntled photo safari operator who was mad that one of their star attractions got killed and went running to animal rights activists to smear the hunting industry in that country.

Ah...those pesky details

I'm really pissed off about the way the media hypes all these situations up and the later on, when proven wrong, they don't even apologize but stand by 'well, based on what we knew at the time we were justified to feel and act that way.' Got dang just let it play out and get all the facts before you flame away on these tense subjects.

Of course if it turns out these guys did nothing wrong and it was a legal hunt, the media will immediately shut up and you will never hear Cecil the lion again.

I like "Striped lives matter" better.

I disagree with the highlighted statement. I know of one person specifically who plead guilty to a lesser charge because his lawyers told him it would probably be a quarter mil to challenge it, while the plead down fine and restitution would be one tenth that cost. That and the cost of this persons time was worth the plea deal.

I think that scenario happens quite often.