My wife need a license?

Can my wife walk with me without a license while I hunt squirrels, or does she need to have her own hunting license? North Texas public hunting.

Yes, she can be with you. Best way to be assured of that is contact the Game Warden in that specific county.

Have her take the hunter safety course and buy a license. It's not expensive and she can learn something.

Yes. Not hunting, doesn’t need license. There is nothing to call the game warden about. Just don’t have her carry your gun for you.

Don’t call the GW, she’s not hunting

It’s a good way to get harassed by a GW if you call

My wife doesn't hunt, I found out decades ago it easier to just buy a license that have to explain to the GW that she doesn't hunt. The cost is so little that the aggravation it saves it worth more. Or it may be the case your wife says let me try, then you broke the law. Not worth the aggravation.

If she’s not hunting why would she need a license? It’s not against the law to walk on public land. You shouldn’t have to explain anything to a game warden.

You’re walking a fine line. A temporary license is very inexpensive.

“Other than a non-hunting adult who is directly assisting a permitted disabled hunter, no exceptions will be made for family members or other non-permitted guests to accompany the hunter into the hunt area. A valid hunting license and any required stamp endorsements is required to participate in these hunts.”

https://tpwd.texas.gov/huntwild/hunt/public/annual_public_hunting/

Look at Limited public use permit ($12)

Yeah, it can depend on the game warden. If she is with you, the GW may think she is 'hunting' even if she does not have a gun because she is helping you go after game.

You can call the game warden for clarification. Just don't say when you will be hunting and then you aren't likely to have a chance of being harassed.

You need to specify what type of public land you're talking about. Type 2 is complicated, which is what was previously posted, and why I will have nothing to do with it.

She's not big into hunting, but enjoys being with me. She's not going to want to sit down and take hunter safety course just to walk with me in the woods. I'd call my local game warden, but he's usually pretty short with his responses or just sends me a link to the same info I already have questions about. I think I'll dec her out in orange and just go for it.

Don't let her have any hunting items on her. No shells or anything.

Agree with this. Just make it as clear as possible that she isn't hunting

If not hunting she does not need a license. Do not have her carry a gun. Just remember in Texas if you pull the trigger on anything you need a license. This was explained to me years ago from a GW.

Not quite true. On Private property, pigs require no license. I know that the OP is not talking about pig hunting on private property, but still.

or east Austin after dark ...

Pretty simple. No license. No hunt. Don’t have to have a license to be with you.

She doesn’t have to prove she ain’t hunting. GW has to prove she is hunting.

Next someone will be saying you have to have a fishing license to ride in the boat with you.

Even if she picks up a dead bird or dead squirrel or helps you find them, that is technically in pursuit of game.

If a game warden wants to write you a ticket, the can.

So with that thinking if my 3 year old holds a deer head up after the shot for a picture, they are now hunting? I don't think so.

I'll never forget when Paul went out to watch Mike fish at the lake. Paul's somewhat of a goober doodle and don't know a durn thing about fishing. Mike asked Paul to hold his rod while he went and took a pee. GW came up and despite protestations from both, gave poor Paul a ticket for having a pole in his hand and thus, fishing without a license. The line was not in the water.

Paul contested it with the JP. Ol' man Fred Stewart asked Paul for his side of the story. Paul began, "There I was standing there with a fishing pole in my hand, when . . . .", Judge Stewart stopped him right then and there and indicated that was all he needed to hear. Case for the GW.

Your three year old didnt actively help you pursue game, spotting and retrieving game is definitely in pursuit of game. Also, your three year old isnt an adult.

Straight from TPWD
Hunt
To capture, trap, take, or kill, and includes the act of attempting to capture, trap, take, or kill.

Make that argument to the game warden when he comes to check you that the wife had no part in taking or attempting to take the animal. I've met some that wouldnt have a problem with it and Ive met some that would.

Just buy the license and dont take the risk.

But you do you man.

Facts

My kids help me spot game and the entire family helps retrieve it when I shoot something. None of which requires a hunting license.. Being an adult/minor has nothing to do with needing a hunting license in Texas either. If one is hunting they need a license. If they aren’t, they don’tt need a license. Looking at animals, helping to find them or loading them into a truck doesn’t fall anywhere in the definition of hunting, that is just BS. Your statement about capture, trapping, etc, surely applies to the hunter who is actually hunting but in no way applies to someone just along for the hunt. I’m not going to argue anything with the GW, one gun, one hunter and one license is sufficient enough. Unless they see someone shooting, holding the gun or otherwise actually hunting it didn’t happen. No different than fishing with someone without a license on the boat. Quite honestly people saying someone who isn’t hunting and having no intentions of doing so needing a license is completely ridiculous and would never stand up in court.

Get the wrong GW on a bad day and you are hosed. What could go wrong? Honest Officer, I was just holding the gun/fishing pole but wasn't going to use it. Most of the ones I know or have known have some common sense but they have heard more than one honorable intention story. It's not only a license but Hunter Safety Course that could lead to problems.

Best advice given is to talk to the GW in advance.

Some funny folks here.

Hope the police doesn't suspect my kids of driving from their car seat. I mean they are in the truck.

I hunted most of my life, not over thinking issues like this. I always intended to do the right thing and it was, and still is my intent to not break the rules. I grew up around cops, and they too respected game laws and we didn't talk a whole lot about hunting laws, we just followed them. That was how we operated. One year we needed a new person on the lease and unknowingly made a bad decision and got someone that was the self appointed game warden who was constantly one upping everyone with his vast knowledge of obscure game laws that he had to be making up, really wore us out. Took all of the fun out of it for himself, and his family. We mostly ignored him.

The last few years I've hunted in a way that really required me to know state law as it relates to trespass, taking and care of game and a few A.C.O.E. regulations. I made a few calls to the right people and really discovered a big difference between rumor, what I call folk lore law, individual interpretation and actual law.

My point of this rambling is, read the law yourself, use the brain God gave you and make a decision. Act on that decision. The laws are easily accessed as are the definitions to some of the words and terms. Someone will always be able to come up with some scenario under which a GW will give you a ticket. Most of the time, you wouldn't get a ticket under the circumstances they describe. If you were to get a ticket, that doesn't mean your guilty.

Get out there and enjoy it.

Lol man, you do you.

I bet you do those activities on private property. Have you met any of the game wardens in North Texas on public lands? I have, some would give the ticket and some wouldnt.

Why take the risk over $20? Plus, every license bought funds TPWD.

Again, this is pretty simple.

If you are hunting, you need a license. If you are not hunting, you do not.
LE is there to enforce the laws they witness being violated. Not to speculate and guess.

If this is on type II public land, then check on that. Rules may be different.

If some of you truly know wardens who would ticket or “harasses” people in this type of situation that is sad and not correct. I hope you are making reports and talking to superiors. Those type of wardens, and according to those on here, are numerous. They are hurting the future of our great sport and should be called out. Not only that, they are creating distrust and negative situations that “good” wardens are having to face and deal with daily.

True.

Our GW comes into camp and asks to see "everyone's" license. There are a few wives present, in camo, arriving in camp on S x S's with their husbands. They don't produce licenses's, but hang around while he does his thing. He's never frisked them for ammo in their pockets. GW's aren't fools, and do great work. They don't set themselves up for failure by writing citations based on what they think may have happened. The few times I have had personal knowledge of a citation from a GW, he had them dead to rights based on what he observed. (if you ever get a chance, look in the cab of their vehicles. They have a generous budget for night vision, and daytime, long range spotting equipment). They know the answer to the question, "Were you hunting", before they ask it.

I'm not risking anything because no one is breaking the law. With that thinking should my 3 year old go ahead and get a LTC as well so that when I'm carrying we don't have to risk there being confusion? Now doesn't that sound dumb? No one is getting ticketed for no hunting license for walking with someone while they are hunting. Simple as that.




It seems that the same people continuously have problems with GW being "a-holes" to them.....It always makes me think that maybe they are the problem and not the GW. I know there is always an exception to the rules but I have yet to meet or hear about a GW that would ticket someones wife or kids for merely walking with them while they hunt.

We "had" a lease member that told us we were breaking the law for feeding deer, since we were within a migratory bird flyway. He also parked in the middle of the roads, because he was in a leased vehicle, and didn't want it scratched. I don't think he hunts anymore.

Not if she is as smart as this woman,
A farmer and his wife got their crops planted on time, and off to a good start, so they decided to take a short vacation. They rented a cabin on a nearby lake for a few days of fishing and relaxation.

One morning after several hours of fishing, the farmer returned to the cabin for lunch and a nap. Although not familiar with the lake, the wife decides to take the boat out. She motored out a short distance, anchors, puts her feet up, and begins to read her book. The peace and solitude were magnificent.

A short time after settling in to her novel, a Game Warden pulled up next to her in his boat. He said, “Good morning, Ma’am. What are you doing?” “Reading a book,” she replies, thinking: Isn’t that obvious?

“You’re in a Restricted Fishing Area,” the Game Warden informs her. “I’m sorry, officer, but I’m not fishing. I’m reading.” “Yes, but I see you have all the equipment. For all I know you could start fishing at any moment. I’ll have to take you in and write you up.”

“If you do that, I’ll have to charge you with sexual assault,” said the woman. “But I haven’t even touched you!” says the Warden. “That’s true, but you have all the equipment. For all I know you could start at any moment.”

The Game warden said, “Have a nice day, Ma’am,” and and tipped his cap as he pulled away.

That OLD one was posted on THF just a bit ago.
Kinda funny.


Not relevant at all.

You are right it is not relevant at all, but it's funny. And I have noticed that there are always several "not relevant at all" messages in all the threads.

I'l get you next time!

Double amen to that brother. But it’s only slightly funny.

Your kids help spot and retrieve game? Man, that 100% falls into the category of tasks that require a hunting license. Pulling the trigger that kills the animal is not the sole task that is "hunting". "Spotting" and "Retrieving" are part of the pursuit and taking of the animal. Essentially, "participating" in any way in the taking of game requires a hunting license. It's kind of like claiming that the 3 people that are out in the woods, intentionally (intentionally being important here) "driving deer" in your direction aren't hunting because they aren't killing the game. I can guarantee you that if you tell any judge in the state of TX that your kid was helping you spot game to kill - that they'll tell you he was participating in a hunting activity that requires a license. Now you have judges that will still turn around and dismiss it because they think it's dumb (and it is) but they aren't going say it's not a hunting activity that require a license.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's non-sense and should be limited to the person pulling the trigger....and I'm also not saying a GW would cite you for it... but yeah, it's technically participation that require a license.

Probably not something you are likely to get in trouble for on private land but on public land you have a high likelihood of getting cited for it.

I welcome the day a GW writes a kid a ticket for going along on a hunt with their dad, using binoculars while on the hunt and helping their dad load their deer.

Also, from the outdoor annual, the definition of "hunt"



Point to me where it says spotting and retrieving game falls into that definition. An observer isn't doing any of the above actions.

Also, licensing wording:

If it's a WMA, she does need a limited use permit though.

Like I said, I don't disagree with you that it's nonsense. And with federal public lands - a lot of the areas have gone the extra step to point out specifically that non-licensed people can't accompany you because people do get caught/cited for it and the federal land managers in a lot of those areas don't like to see it happen, so they want to make people aware of it.

But to answer your question "spotting" and "retrieving" are tasks associated with the "capture, trapping, taking, or killing" of the animal or the attempt to do so. If you can't spot the animal, you can't kill it. It's just like "Pulling the trigger" isn't specifically listed either but is a task associated with the "capture, trapping, taking, or killing" of the animal or the attempt to do so. In other words, if any action is taken in furtherance of the "capture, trapping, taking, or killing" of an animal, it requires a license.

Again, I think it's BS but I think a lot of the hunting regulations are BS... it's just another avenue of revenue generation for the state. Although, it takes a special kind of GW to cite for it if it's just a parent and their kid spending some time together.

Hunt
To capture, trap, take, or kill, and includes the act of attempting to capture, trap, take, or kill.

You dont think someone saying "Hey there is one, shoot it" furthers the success of killing an animal?

KR being you don't have your location posted I will have to guess where you hunt and fish. Many years ago in Harrison County my dad and I were cat fishing and there was another boat tied up close to us (Caddo Lake in the River) when a game warden pulled up and started checking licenses. We were good but the other boat had a lady sunning herself and not fishing. However the man in the boat had multiple fishing poles set out as we did and the GW wrote the lady a ticket for fishing without a license because of the multiple poles. In Northeast Texas we have had several GW's get in trouble with the law over the years, had one put an eye out trying to shoot the lock off of a deer camp gate. I respect the laws and most of the ones that enforce them as they have a thankless job but I also feel some think their job is to write tickets. I have been stopped multiple times hunting and fishing with only one warning because someone pushed all of our dove into one pile. It is easier to follow the laws and not worry about it.

What does that have to do with “hunting”? Nothing in that definition comes close to touching that and it isn’t illegal to have your non licensed kid or wife with you while hunting. There is zero wording in the regulations that state that looking at a deer through binoculars now constitutes you as being a hunter. On the contrary, hunting is clearly defined above. In no way is someone who spots a deer doing any of those actions, they are literally just looking at it.

Completely disagree. Nowhere do the regulations come close to saying spotting a deer constitutes hunting. Hunting is clearly defined and there is no mention of tasks associated automatically making someone a hunter. With that argument whoever is driving the truck to drop you off at the blind is assisting in you killing a deer and now needs a license.

Not really worth my time to keep arguing over. I've explained why you are wrong and if you can't grasp it, there isn't anything I can do to help you. You can choose to accept what I've said or you can choose not to, it doesn't affect me at all. Besides, us pesky attorneys don't really know anything about the interpretation of laws/rules/regulations...and there is no way we've ever been in a court room and seen this situation play out.

I respectfully bow out. Good luck to you and the family on your hunting trips.

Forget the license. Just get you an attorney on retainer.

but the other boat had a lady sunning herself and not fishing. However the man in the boat had multiple fishing poles set out as we did and the GW wrote the lady a ticket for fishing without a license because of the multiple poles.


Not saying it did not happen. I was not there, but I would have to witness that with my own eyes to ever believe that.

So, now we have to have multiple fishing license to have out multiple poles. Let’s go. Ha.

I do not care what the situation is, if a warden does not see a violation, or does not investigate and find FACTS that supported his belief a citation would not be written nor would it stand up in court. This is not Minority Report.

I’m not going to attempt to get into the legality of it. I’m not a lawman or a lawyer. My wife does not hunt. I have from time to time taken her with me though. I always buy her a license first. If there was an issue whether she was guilty or not the time and effort before a judge would be more hassle and expense than a license. The down side of any possibility of getting her name in the paper and me cooking my own supper or even worse at bedtime just isn’t worth saving the price of a license to me.

Your wife, your call.

According to some responses a professional hunting guide that is not shooting doesn't need a license. That won't float, because a person helping the trigger puller is also a hunter.

My wife has never hunted. She doesn't especially like hunting. If I were to take her with me and she had no firearm and was just walking with me and I was the one with the firearm and she was given a citation there would be hell to pay. It had to be a GW that had no sense or was just chicken sh*t and they need to find another job where being like that is a requirement.

I can't believe this thread got beyond one guy answering "no"....dang 3 pages of what ifs. lol

Some of these threads should make it to the GW chronicles! Somewhere out there is a possum cop sitting in his truck reading these threads. Half the time he is laughing so hard he pees himself and the other half he is just staring with a bewildered look in his eye wondering how some people can be so ignorant. I'm not making any specific accusations as to which thread, I'm just saying...……………………………..

I am not an attorney, but glad that I am not alone in the interpretation that is likely to occur from a GW.

It is amazing that people want to argue and act like police are going to not write you or harass you when that is literally what they are trained to do. Police are trained to try and subvert your rights and they VERY often overstep and reach on citations.

Also, I dont see how people dont think that assisting in taking game is hunting.

I believe she would have to have the Public Lands Permit.

Sounds like you've had some first hand experience with this. What were you arrested for?

LOL, Never even been close to being arrested.

Sounds like you have never hunted public lands before or read an article in your life.

Why don't those of you that think his wife needs a license send her the money to purchase one??? That way you can be assured she will not get a citation. Also, for those that do think she needs a license for tagging along with husband, do you think the GW will give you a citation for deer hunting out of season if he catches you toting a rifle when you are going to pull the camera chip at the deer feeder?

Personally, I am really not concerned if she gets a citation (or not).

Bahahaha, if dude doesnt want to spend $20 to not go through the trouble of being questioned, he can do that. He asked for advice and it was given.

I tote a rifle pretty much anytime I go to the woods year around ... hogs, coyotes, bobcat, mountain lion, etc. doesn't mean just deer

@ KSTexas: LOL, Never even been close to being arrested.

"Sounds like you have never hunted public lands before or read an article in your life."

Wrong on both counts. Successful on public land two years in a row, read extensively on the subject.

Where do you draw your information from relating to police being trained to "subvert your rights"? I'd like to know so that I can appropriately categorize your statement.

I respect law enforcement and make sure that my interactions with them stay positive.

That being said, you are a fool to think that law enforcement are there to protect you or ensure that your rights are upheld.

If you trust police to do the right thing unconditionally and to look out for you, there is nothing left to talk about.

I am actually glad that you have had successful hunts on public lands and haven't had a negative experience with any game wardens.

I will say that generally they are all pleasant, knowledgeable, and often times forgiving if you have made an honest mistake. That doesn't mean that they all are.

I live my life with the idea that I may beat something in court, doesn't mean I want to deal with an overzealous person enforcing what they think the law should be.

OP's wife would probably be completely fine and not even run into a Game Warden that may question her much less give her a ticket.

To me, like I have said several times, it isn't worth the trouble to not get one.

But like I said, not my ticket and not my problem. It is okay to have different opinions. I gave mine as well did others that shared the same opinion, OP can draw his own conclusion.

This was back in the 1970's and I remember it well, not sure if it held up in court or not. I still fish the same spot though the big tree has long sense rotted away. The same GW and the county judge placed an article in the local paper that anyone killing a doe with the new 4 deer either sex regulations in Harrison county would receive a ticket for taking a doe no matter what the new hunting digest said. I called TP&W and talked with 2 different people and got 2 different answers to what was legal. It took a Certified Letter to TP&W to get it sorted out. The letter was hand delivered to my door by said GW saying to shoot all the doe I wanted but please don't send another letter to Austin.

Nice speech, but you didn't answer my question. Here it is again:
Where do you draw your information from relating to police being trained to "subvert your rights"? Own what you stated as fact, that police are "trained to subvert your rights". Let us know where you get your information, or label it as your opinion.

I'll ignore being called a fool.

I absolutely believe that law enforcement is here to protect, and uphold my rights. For example, it is my right to hunt where and how I do. It would be impossible for me to hunt where I do without law enforcement working, enforcing the law. The area is so remote, access is strictly limited and without enforcement, there would be so many hunters doing it illegally that it would be unsafe, and over run with vehicles and hunters that by law couldn't be there (felons). I actually call the game warden and let him know I'm coming, what my vehicle looks like and after the hunt how I did. He upholds my right to be there by checking on my vehicle and making sure the local meth heads don't break into my truck while I'm 4 miles away on foot.

So, let me know the answer to my question, or let me know if it is just your opinion that law enforcement is trained to subvert our rights.

I think I'll just take her with me without a license and try to plead our case should we get stopped.

Plead nothing. She isn’t hunting, end of story.

These two responses are the most sensible in this thread. This has been my experience too. I take my wife with me on those rare occasions she want to go but she doesn't hunt and has no desire to do so either. I don't buy her a license, I don't ask her to carry anything or do anything for me that I wouldn't or couldn't do alone. And I intend to keep bringing her when she wants to go.

Those responses where LE is trained to subvert rights is over the top wrong. They are trained to observe for infractions and to enforce the law.

To answer your questions, I get my information from two very close friends that are in law enforcement and a family member that spent his career in intelligence.

You obviously didn't read what I wrote, mainly the below three excerpts. You are arguing because you think it is fun. I have nothing left to say to you.

If you trust police to do the right thing unconditionally and to look out for you, there is nothing left to talk about.

I will say that generally they are all pleasant, knowledgeable, and often times forgiving if you have made an honest mistake. That doesn't mean that they all are.

OP's wife would probably be completely fine and not even run into a Game Warden that may question her much less give her a ticket.

I read what you wrote, closely. As for arguing, you called me a fool. I specifically took issue with one statement, "Law Enforcement is trained to subvert your rights". That's a strong word, that infers an intentional undermining or overthrowing of our rights. I call Bull on your answer. One thing LE is trained on is restraint, which is why many have not responded to your insult of their profession. You can't walk that back.

You will forever be known on this forum, by me, as the guy that stated that Law Enforcement is trained to subvert our rights.

As far as police not protecting citizens, it isn't an opinion, it is a fact that was ruled upon by the supreme court.

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/...ve-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

As far as police being trained to subvert your rights, police are allowed to lie and trick you in any investigation in order to get the answers they want/need.

Here is case law to support that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frazier_v._Cupp

Here is a shorter article explaining how police are allowed to lie to suspects to get information and often access to search.

https://www.policemag.com/339673/the-lawful-use-of-deception

Here is a really long Cornell Law Review Article about it for a more reputable source.

https://www.policemag.com/339673/the-lawful-use-of-deception

I want to reiterate, there are a lot of good and honest police out there that do the job because they want to be helpful and serve the people. I have had plenty of positive interactions with police and Game Wardens. I have enjoyed speaking to Game Wardens and have sought them out several times to ask for opinions and information.

From earlier in this thread
"I will say that generally they are all pleasant, knowledgeable, and often times forgiving if you have made an honest mistake. That doesn't mean that they all are."

The fact is that they are not required to protect the people and it is arguable what they are required to do under "serve."

I don't agree with people putting anyone, including police, on a pedestal thinking that they are going to always be on your side. There have been way too many instances where good people have been railroaded, tricked, and sometimes killed for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

My whole point to begin with is to just make sure that there can be no questions when hunting, especially public lands. Make sure that you have all of your bases covered.

I am just not sure how I am insulting a profession by stating what has already been decided by the highest court in the country and a lot of case law. It isn't my opinion, it is the opinion of the court that police don't have to protect you and are legally allowed to lie to you in order to convince you to give up your rights.

I personally have had a police officer try to tell me that I was DUI when I had been hit in the face by a come along that punched a hole through my lip and cut my toungue. I had hospital release paperwork that I offered to show him that I had been given no pain killers and explained why I couldn't speak clearly. When his partner arrived, his partner took him to the side and suddenly everything was okay. At the time, I was parked waiting for my girlfriend to come down from her apartment to move her car. I had done nothing wrong and he started questioning me about an unrelated call and if I had any information in that.

That is just my personal story of harassment, most other encounters I have had were positive.

I don't understand why so many people think that everything is so black and white. Life is full of gray areas in almost everything we do. There are plenty instances where what is right isn't always legal (ie in some states it is not okay to dispatch an animal after legal shooting time that was wounded before the end of legal shooting time, but the right thing is to end the suffering) and sometimes what is legal isnt always right (ie overharvesting a property because you have the tags).

You can disagree with how policing works but still respect officers as individuals. It can be both.

I hope that this brings some insight as to where I am coming from.

OP states that he made his decision to not get her a hunting license. I can respect that and don't take any issue with him doing that. People can do as they please.

I apologize for inferring that you are a fool. That was a poor choice of words.

Case Closed, you're that guy.

Alright man, good for you.

I have seen you literally argue with everyone that brings up anything legal around here, so I guess I should feel honored.

Based on this interpretation, scouting on public land before the season would be illegal.

Says the guy that calls me a fool, lectures me, states he has nothing more to say, continues to respond, states that law enforcement is trained to "subvert" our rights, and now states that police don't protect citizens.

You are still that guy that insults law enforcement, and I'll call you out on it at every opportunity.

I agree with your opinion. I fully support law enforcement but they are not going to protect you from bad guys, you need to be prepared to do that yourself IMO. Most of their work is trying to catch bad guys after the crime has been committed....... and IMO you need to know your rights and NEVER relinquish them to law enforcement for any reason as one of our highest ranking military Generals found out when the FBI told him he didn’t need legal counsel to answer their questions.....

IMO: LE can't always be there to protect me and my family. This is why I am LTC, and make myself capable of protecting my family and myself. Patrolling by LE is protection, and when called on, or the need arises, they protect.

Katy bar the door! This part of discussion is over. One of most sound/logical opinions I have seen on this forum.
To argue now is effort after foolishness.

I agree with your opinion. I fully support law enforcement but they are not going to protect you from bad guys, you need to be prepared to do that yourself IMO. Most of their work is trying to catch bad guys after the crime has been committed....... and IMO you need to know your rights and NEVER relinquish them to law enforcement for any reason as one of our highest ranking military Generals found out when the FBI told him he didn’t need legal counsel to answer their questions.....



We have a first! Two logical posts in one thread. Good job.

This thread has gone off the rails, but it has been entertaining.

It is my general observation that I am better off not coming into contact with law enforcement of any kind. That includes, cops, GW's, judges, politicians and "public servants" of all kinds.

We also have two posters that declare the discussion over, nothing more to say, only to continue to reply.

It depends how hot she looks

I guess it depends on the circumstances. There's alot of THF members I'd like to meet but most of ya-all are up North of Centerville. They include cops, firefighters, GWs. Not sure about any Judges on here. Only the politicians get that broad brush from me. There's only a few I'd let on my lawn.

Read the newspapers, in a weeks time you will see a few of the leading role models indicted. Whether it be a teacher, a preacher, or a LEO, every week one or more goes to post bail and await trial.

I guess it's time to admit I used to be a politician, but I grew a conscience and became a real estate developer instead.

We're up to six pages by my count.

I do read, each and every day. You are right about seeing the leading role models. But the percentage of the bad apples (caught and uncaught) versus the good is extremely small. I don't have anything scientific backing me up, but i would bet the percentage is roughly the same across most to all of civilized humanity. To ostracize one is to ostracize all, or not as in my case.

DC, please don't take my words as trying to split any fence here or mince words to the molecular level. I'm just not willing to allow a tiny percentage to sway my view. You were a professional soldier, I'd love to shake your hand too. Lt. Calley's actions will not sway that one bit. I don't think i can explain it any better.

Wow....just wow......