Armed man wearing blaze orange in deer blind: I wasn't hunti

[h2ofwlr]

Armed man wearing blaze orange in deer blind: I wasn't hunting

December 23, 2013
By Ben Grove, BMTN

The Minnesota Court of Appeals on Monday ruled that a man who had been found wearing blaze orange in a camouflaged deer blind with a loaded 12-gauge next to him was … hunting.

Roger B. Schmid had been found by a game warden in November 2011, and he admitted that he’d shot a deer the night before. But the officer took note that Schmid’s deer license did not have a bonus permit to shoot a second deer, and the warden cited him for the violation.

Schmid listed a number of excuses, including an argument that he was just observing nature. He appealed a jury ruling of hunting without a license, but the appeals court did not buy his protestations, either. Schmid argued unsuccessfully that he had not been caught “taking” a deer, according to court documents.

But the court ruled Monday that Schmid had been “pursuing” deer, and so by legal definition, had been “taking” deer. The court in a 9-page ruling carefully considered the meaning of the word “pursuing” a deer, and ultimately affirmed the jury ruling, noting that “pursuing deer includes Schmid’s act of entering deer habitat to intercept and shoot a deer.”

Schmid’s lawyer declined comment, the Star Tribune notes.

[Bill Gilbertson]

And another lawyer enriched. I wonder if he ever told the poacher he had no chance.

[dwendt]

Depends what it was loaded with but I imagine it was slugs...foolish.

If he really wasn't hunting deer he would have had some other load type in, then he might have been able to fight it. Amazing how dumb some people can be.

[Goldfish]

People can't own up to their mistakes any more. It's sad.

Sent from a phancy fone

[Jsb]

I wonder how much time and money he spent trying to fight this.

[Bill Gilbertson]

Front page of today's Strib:
"Hunter's Appeal Misses Target"
It must be a slow news day

[Jrp267]

Why "hunters appeal". He was a poacher.