I've shown where the high court in two different states have ruled that an interpretation of a law very similar to ours and a defintion of hunting that is almost identical to ours was overbroad and prohibited innocent activities. I've also cited opinions stating that criminal statutes must be interpreted strictly in favor of the defendant.
The facts of each instance is ultimately up to a jury to decide. Having said that, it is unfair for a game warden to write a man up, cause him to miss work and have to pay a lawyer to represent him when the facts of the case do not show beyond all reasonable doubt that the man was committing the offense. Hoping he will just pay up and not fight is not what I call honoring the oath that officer took to support our constitutions.
That is the basis of what the courts were saying in the opinions I refered to. People should not be afraid to enjoy activities that are perfectly lawful for fear that the appearance of it might cause them to be convicted of some alleged crime they were not committing.
I believe that is what happened to Bucky from what he has told us here. I have seen no evidence that removes all reasonable doubt that he was, in fact, attempting to catch or kill game as he walked back to his truck that day. I hope twelve of his peers sees the same, and I'm sorry he was put thru this ordeal for no good reason.
