Dirty tactics once again from the AZGFD! Now you'll know why to never trust them

[Jcubed]

Non-Typical

 

It is called due process.

[AZLance]

This reminds me of a hunt in unit 33 years ago. One of our clients shot a nice buck from about 300 yds. The buck immediately dropped to the ground and began to flail around on the ground. While the client and guide got their stuff together and prepared to go retrieve their buck, two other hunters who had not been seen, walked up to the buck on the ground and finished it off with a shot to the chest. What happened next was mind blowing. They they got out their tag and put it on our clients buck. Well when our client and guide arrived at the buck a argument began, so Game and Fish was called to resolve the problem. The officer who arrived told our client, tough luck, although it was not sportsman like to do what they did, it was totally legal. He said that even though the buck was down and not getting back up, the other hunters actually finished it off and killed it, so it was their buck to tag. This kind of goes against what G&F is now claiming in this incident.

 

Seems like double standards are routinely enforced or not enforced with this department.

[Non-Typical Solutions]

Non-Typical

 

It is called due process.

So if we just be quiet and not talk about it everything will be just fine right?

 

All I am sayin is if what I quoted is correct......what would have happened to me as a hunter, that is all I am asking.

 

Would I get that same due process???

[bonecollector777]

Another thing we are all forgetting is the fact that three other game wardens participated in all of this that day. A justice court judge also was there participating. While Shawn is coming on here attempting to sound like a nice innocent guy I know him to be much different. Don't let him fool you. I suppose he was trying to intimidate me by using my last name but I have openly told people my name and posted my picture on this site because I have nothing to hide. Unlike some members like the tough guy rifleman who suddenly come to the azgfd defense when their role model Wagner posts.

SHAWN, in your message you stated that you and ken clay tried to get the department to issue citations to each of you. You then proceeded to say that they refused to do so. In that sentence you admitted to all of us that you and clay knew you were in violation of the law. You then proceeded to do nothing about it along with the department. You admitted to law breaking so why not take responsibility for it? And the fact that you officers refused to issue a citation is a class 2 misdemeanor in itself. You are here to enforce the law. Not break it. You also admitting to helping others who were in the same situation with someone else shooting their elk is also incriminating. Maybe it was a good idea to only post once, before you sink your own ship.

[reganranch]

I would like to thank those of you who took the time out of your busy lives to actually read the 14 page judgment. Understand that this is 14 pages summarizing a 1,400 page trial transcript. So, obviously there are many more facts to the case than could possibly be presented in the ruling. However, the Judge heard all the facts when he rendered his decision.

Many of you have raised very good points regarding laws, intent, who can have a tag, who “killed” the elk, etc. Most of those points were raised by one side or the other during the two day trial and the Judge heard all the arguments.

It appears that many of you think this case is about the elk hunt. It is not. This case is solely about the Department violating the Arizona Whistleblower law and taking reprisal against me because I brought violations of policy and statute to its attention. If any of your rights were violated, I hope you would fight for them, too.

Many of you seem to be convinced that myself and the others involved in the elk hunt committed some kind of violation. I will be the first to say that everyone is entitled to their opinion of whether or not the actions we took on the elk hunt were proper based on the facts they have. However, after reviewing all the facts, the Judge in Superior Court ruled that the actions taken were legal and justified. And he ruled that the actions taken by the Department were not.

We asked the Department to issue us a citation if they felt we had done something wrong. We were prepared to be treated like anyone else. We would have gone to court like any of you and had a judge hear the case. The Department refused to issue us a citation and instead violated policy and state laws in conducting its investigation of us. None of you would have tolerated that, I’m certain.

Some of you call this a “cover up”. We were telling our supervisor and other officers during the entire incident, who all agreed in how we were resolving the unplanned circumstances. No one was covering anything. I have told lots of people in the public about this.

Contrary to some posts, we all did get disciplined. In fact, our pay lost, and litigation costs far exceeded any fines we would have gotten if we were convicted on a citation.

Some of you have raised the issue of how you would have been treated. I would have never written a citation in this situation. In fact, I have had almost this same situation in the past and helped pack out the meat and get the animal to the rightful owner. I can only hope you are always treated with respect, common sense and reasonableness with a consideration for whether or not you were trying to do something illegal or not, when contacted by our officers.

So, Mr. Owens, please write your letters. That is your right. I agree the Governor and the Attorney General should know what all occurred in this matter. Thank you for caring enough about hunting to have an opinion. But if you (or anyone else) would like, you can contact me to get actual facts to make sure what you write is accurate. My personal cell phone is (928) 699-1745. This is my only post.

-Shawn

 

Did you know before hand that breaking the law would get you,

 

Okay it wasn't that much, but 100 K are you kidding me because your feelings were hurt that you were investigated for breaking a current law you definetly enforce? What did you do with the hurt feelings money? Buy an Audi R8 with a college girlfriend? AzLance is right if you have any moral compass at all that money should go to a NGO wildlife agency.

[Jcubed]

Non-Typical

 

It is called due process.

So if we just be quiet and not talk about it everything will be just fine right?

 

All I am sayin is if what I quoted is correct......what would have happened to me as a hunter, that is all I am asking.

 

Would I get that same due process???

 

Yes, you as an American under the Constitution would have the same due process.

 

Better ask if you would rather be judged in the courts or by the lynch mod that has formed on this forum?

 

Cheers

[Jcubed]

Another thing we are all forgetting is the fact that three other game wardens participated in all of this that day. A justice court judge also was there participating. While Shawn is coming on here attempting to sound like a nice innocent guy I know him to be much different. Don't let him fool you. I suppose he was trying to intimidate me by using my last name but I have openly told people my name and posted my picture on this site because I have nothing to hide. Unlike some members like the tough guy rifleman who suddenly come to the azgfd defense when their role model Wagner posts. SHAWN, in your message you stated that you and ken clay tried to get the department to issue citations to each of you. You then proceeded to say that they refused to do so. In that sentence you admitted to all of us that you and clay knew you were in violation of the law. You then proceeded to do nothing about it along with the department. You admitted to law breaking so why not take responsibility for it? And the fact that you officers refused to issue a citation is a class 2 misdemeanor in itself. You are here to enforce the law. Not break it. You also admitting to helping others who were in the same situation with someone else shooting their elk is also incriminating. Maybe it was a good idea to only post once, before you sink your own ship.

 

Actually, what he was trying to guarantee was his right to DUE PROCESS. The whole innocent until proven guilty concept, instead of the lynch mobs that form with insufficient evidence to comprehend the points at issue and just determine guilt because it feels good and fits there agenda (kinda sounds like a certain political party, doesn't it?).

 

I know it is hard to comprehend but in American we have a pesky document called the Constitution that GUARANTEES citizens certain rights...

[huntjunkie]

Look,I'm not surprised the level of corruption in this department. I wasn't going to comment until I read his post. I'm not commenting on whether his rights were violated, I don't know. What I'm appalled at is the fact that he clearly violated a law on the books. Then thumbs his nose at us like we're a bunch of idiots. He knows and everyone else knows that had we committed the very same acts we would have gotten our "due process"! The legal system isn't corrupt either. Just confirms my suspicions all along.

[huntjunkie]

Another thing we are all forgetting is the fact that three other game wardens participated in all of this that day. A justice court judge also was there participating. While Shawn is coming on here attempting to sound like a nice innocent guy I know him to be much different. Don't let him fool you. I suppose he was trying to intimidate me by using my last name but I have openly told people my name and posted my picture on this site because I have nothing to hide. Unlike some members like the tough guy rifleman who suddenly come to the azgfd defense when their role model Wagner posts. SHAWN, in your message you stated that you and ken clay tried to get the department to issue citations to each of you. You then proceeded to say that they refused to do so. In that sentence you admitted to all of us that you and clay knew you were in violation of the law. You then proceeded to do nothing about it along with the department. You admitted to law breaking so why not take responsibility for it? And the fact that you officers refused to issue a citation is a class 2 misdemeanor in itself. You are here to enforce the law. Not break it. You also admitting to helping others who were in the same situation with someone else shooting their elk is also incriminating. Maybe it was a good idea to only post once, before you sink your own ship.

Actually, what he was trying to guarantee was his right to DUE PROCESS. The whole innocent until proven guilty concept, instead of the lynch mobs that form with insufficient evidence to comprehend the points at issue and just determine guilt because it feels good and fits there agenda (kinda sounds like a certain political party, doesn't it?).

 

I know it is hard to comprehend but in American we have a pesky document called the Constitution that GUARANTEES citizens certain rights...

Our legal system protects the criminals! You are GUILTY until proven innocent. It's a game of who you know, what attorney you hire and/or how much money you have.

[Jcubed]

Another thing we are all forgetting is the fact that three other game wardens participated in all of this that day. A justice court judge also was there participating. While Shawn is coming on here attempting to sound like a nice innocent guy I know him to be much different. Don't let him fool you. I suppose he was trying to intimidate me by using my last name but I have openly told people my name and posted my picture on this site because I have nothing to hide. Unlike some members like the tough guy rifleman who suddenly come to the azgfd defense when their role model Wagner posts. SHAWN, in your message you stated that you and ken clay tried to get the department to issue citations to each of you. You then proceeded to say that they refused to do so. In that sentence you admitted to all of us that you and clay knew you were in violation of the law. You then proceeded to do nothing about it along with the department. You admitted to law breaking so why not take responsibility for it? And the fact that you officers refused to issue a citation is a class 2 misdemeanor in itself. You are here to enforce the law. Not break it. You also admitting to helping others who were in the same situation with someone else shooting their elk is also incriminating. Maybe it was a good idea to only post once, before you sink your own ship.

Actually, what he was trying to guarantee was his right to DUE PROCESS. The whole innocent until proven guilty concept, instead of the lynch mobs that form with insufficient evidence to comprehend the points at issue and just determine guilt because it feels good and fits there agenda (kinda sounds like a certain political party, doesn't it?).

 

I know it is hard to comprehend but in American we have a pesky document called the Constitution that GUARANTEES citizens certain rights...

Our legal system protects the criminals! You are GUILTY until proven innocent. It's a game of who you know, what attorney you hire and/or how much money you have.

 

Wow. That is some statement.

 

If you are "GUILTY until proven innocent" then how does the legal system protect criminals? Seems like there is some faulty logic there.

[reganranch]

I'm sure Mr. Wagner appreciates you holding his hand Jcubed. I would probably want my hand held too if I got caught breaking a law like this with my pants down . If I had to put a price on my own self-inflicted negligence it would be close to 100k,+ some change.

[Jcubed]

I'm sure Mr. Wagner appreciates you holding his hand Jcubed. I would probably want my hand held too if I got caught breaking a law like this with my pants down .

 

I'm not holding a hand. Never met the guy and never will...

 

I don't usually make comments on this forum and use it as a release and for pure enjoyment to see other hunters and their hunting success. Occasionally, I make a hunting friend and we enjoy the outdoors together.

 

However, it pains me to see these lynch mobs form. This entire thread has evolved into the trampling of rights. We as hunters need to be very careful about this subject. If you open the door to the mob mentality and the trampling of individual rights guaranteed in this country, then you must ask yourself where does the trampling stop?

 

Regan: good luck with your studies! I am in a similar field.

[huntjunkie]

 

 

 

Another thing we are all forgetting is the fact that three other game wardens participated in all of this that day. A justice court judge also was there participating. While Shawn is coming on here attempting to sound like a nice innocent guy I know him to be much different. Don't let him fool you. I suppose he was trying to intimidate me by using my last name but I have openly told people my name and posted my picture on this site because I have nothing to hide. Unlike some members like the tough guy rifleman who suddenly come to the azgfd defense when their role model Wagner posts. SHAWN, in your message you stated that you and ken clay tried to get the department to issue citations to each of you. You then proceeded to say that they refused to do so. In that sentence you admitted to all of us that you and clay knew you were in violation of the law. You then proceeded to do nothing about it along with the department. You admitted to law breaking so why not take responsibility for it? And the fact that you officers refused to issue a citation is a class 2 misdemeanor in itself. You are here to enforce the law. Not break it. You also admitting to helping others who were in the same situation with someone else shooting their elk is also incriminating. Maybe it was a good idea to only post once, before you sink your own ship.

Actually, what he was trying to guarantee was his right to DUE PROCESS. The whole innocent until proven guilty concept, instead of the lynch mobs that form with insufficient evidence to comprehend the points at issue and just determine guilt because it feels good and fits there agenda (kinda sounds like a certain political party, doesn't it?).

 

I know it is hard to comprehend but in American we have a pesky document called the Constitution that GUARANTEES citizens certain rights...

Our legal system protects the criminals! You are GUILTY until proven innocent. It's a game of who you know, what attorney you hire and/or how much money you have.

Wow. That is some statement.

 

If you are "GUILTY until proven innocent" then how does the legal system protect criminals? Seems like there is some faulty logic there.

What rock have you been hiding under?

Read a news paper,watch television or better yet have you been involved in litigation? Not faulty logic. Just the facts!

[Jcubed]

Apparently a rock that protected my head better than tinfoil

 

Actually, it is pretty faulty logic if you claim the legal system protects criminals and then in the next breath claim a person is GUILTY until proven innocent.

 

You can have one or the other but not both at the same time.

[elkaholic]

Shawn - it's simple -it is about the elk!! was a tag left behind for someone else to tag a wounded - presumed dead elk- that's a violation

 

was the the transport portion of the tag- filled out - then the tag could not be used - as stated in the regulations - that's a violation- its that or someone else filled it out - that's a violation

 

when some one else used the tag on an animal the next day - that they had shot and killed - even if it was to finish off the animal - that's a violation

 

if all these things happened and they did according to court documents then the animal was also transported illegally- that's a violation

 

please feel free to correct me if any of these are wrong!

 

you stated you asked for the department to give citations if they thought you or your buddys did anything wrong

 

it's easy to look up all these laws that were broken - the majority of the people here see it very clearly

 

we all know what would have happened if it was any of us!! thousands in fines and loss of hunting/fishing for 5 yrs and same for all involved!!

 

hopefully the 100,000 covered any expenses or lose of pay