Armed man wearing blaze orange in deer blind: I wasn't hunti
Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2013 6:19 pm
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.
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.