bonecollector777 Report post Posted April 5, 2015 Well looks like Shawn Wagner won his appeal and got his $100,000. What a disgrace that a law breaking wannabe game warden who blatantly broke the law is now getting $100,000 of our money we give the department every year for licenses and tag fees. make sure you read through the court papers I attached and listen to his sob story about how upset he was after the incident and how him and his family were so adversely affected by how he was treated haha what a joke. wagner_v._state.pdf 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
520HUNT Report post Posted April 5, 2015 And people wonder why the department has no respect anymore... I put them right up there with the poachers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
5guyshunting Report post Posted April 5, 2015 there is no win Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
520HUNT Report post Posted April 5, 2015 Dead horses usually don't get $100k 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest 300ultramag. Report post Posted April 5, 2015 He didn't do this for the money. Court of appeals is pricey. Starting at 30k I think Wagner saw this through out of principle 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest 300ultramag. Report post Posted April 5, 2015 Def. shenanigans tho Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DesertBull Report post Posted April 5, 2015 He didn't do this for the money. Court of appeals is pricey. Starting at 30k I think Wagner saw this through out of principle But doesn't the loser pay all legal fees ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Flatlander Report post Posted April 5, 2015 There is no arguing that he committed a crime on his elk hunt. However, this appeal had nothing to do with that. Wagner sued the department because they botched the investigation and didn't allow due process. He is right to sue, but should have been convicted of game violations. 6 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest 300ultramag. Report post Posted April 5, 2015 Not always. You can request it but the judge isn't obligated to rule in the favor just because you Argued your case better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest 300ultramag. Report post Posted April 5, 2015 I think a few revocations should be issued. I wouldn't shoot my buddies animal if he gave me the deed to his house. These guys all made poor choices in my opinion. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Elkhunter1 Report post Posted April 5, 2015 After reading the courts decision; I would have to agree with it. It does appear the Dept. did conduct and execute an improper investigation and disciplined him based on the improper inquiry into his hunting practices. I can say I have experience with the state and its policies and procedures governing employee investigations and how supervisors conduct them. I really hate to agree with Wagoner but there it is! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
prowlerMan Report post Posted April 5, 2015 NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111©, THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. Very 1st thing I see on the document. Might want to be careful bc777. Depending on how this is interpreted...? He might come after you too... This is a public forum and this might be considered publicizing... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bonecollector777 Report post Posted April 5, 2015 NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111©, THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. Very 1st thing I see on the document. Might want to be careful bc777. Depending on how this is interpreted...? He might come after you too... This is a public forum and this might be considered publicizing... Haha you might want to know what you're talking about before you post prowlerman. All that means is that an attorney can't use it as precedence in future cases, because it's a memorandum decision. It won't be published in a case reporter. And for the record I understand he sued because he feels he was treated unfairly. The part I find ridiculous is they all got away without any punishment for the things they did wrong yet he sticks it to the company he works for that does something wrong to him. They could have punished all of them severely for what they did but like always they stick up for their wardens no matter what they do and then they get sued. And who does that money come from to pay the wannabe law enforcement officer? From us. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bonecollector777 Report post Posted April 5, 2015 Also it upsets me at how incompetent our game and fish is. They can't get a simple investigation right. Makes you wonder if they didn't botch it on purpose. They couldn't convict 4 guys that were blatantly guilty of multiple serious offenses but I guarantee they wouldn't screw up our investigation if one of us shot 1 too many quail over the limit or shot from the road etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Flatlander Report post Posted April 5, 2015 Ok, well we got it. AZGFD screwed this up big time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
