Ant, I think the ruffled feathers over the state's definition of hunting at night was the smaller issue in this instance. I think what caused the most heartburn was that the state didn't seem to meet the burden of proof. Hearing a noise but not being sure where it came from hardly constitutes "beyond a reasonable doubt". The fact that a guilty verdict was handed down and then upheld all the way to the Supreme Court is downright sickening. It's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty and that did not seem to be the case here. There was no proof, only suspicion. It's a painful reminder that those who often cannot pay to defend themselves properly can easily get railroaded. Maybe it doesn't cause you heartburn because you can't envision yourself ever being in that boat. A lot of us live in that boat.
But under Rogers v Sfate the only thing the State had to prove was 1. You were in an area where deer were 2. You had some light 3. You had a gun. I personally think the law was bullshit but given ALL the facts this is nof a story of some out of control Judge. And how many members on here could identify a rifle shot 140 yards away???? I can. And by the way I can envision I assure you. I make a living on heartburn. No silver spoon here'.
So Ant, even though we all agree the law was BS and thank goodness there is new precedent now - do you really think that I should just be able to go and sign out a warrant on you b/c I say that you were driving to your hunting camp at night and you had a gun with you? And then the courts back that up completely until it gets overturned by the supreme court? If you don't see the small town good ol' boy court system in the works with this case, then you are completely blind.
And I guess I'm night hunting every time I go up to the hunting camp, b/c I can guarantee there are deer there, it will be night, my truck has headlights and I will have a gun with me.
