Bob, you are as FOS as a Christmas turkey. My first offer for a bet was whether the guy would be convicted of a game law violation, which is not "idle speculation over whether the guy did something wrong." It's a black and white, did he break the law question. Those are decided in court, not on the 24hourcampfire. And don't forget that you're the one who said he broke the law, not me.
But you whined that it was a suckers bet, he might not get convicted, blah blah blah......:
Originally Posted by BobinNH
Disposition could include any number of things short of a conviction. Continued without a finding,nolo contendere,among others, come to mind.
Rolling dice on predicting the outcome of any proceedings in a courtroom is for amateurs. The pro's don't do it.
So I called your bluff and changed the bet to whether he would simply be charged or not, stacking the odds in your favor if you believe what you've been saying. And what did you do?
You still wouldn't take the bet. Apparently "the pros" (whoever they are) don't bet on anything where you come from. Why go through the long-winded amateur attorney bit on why it's a "sucker's bet" when you're not gonna take the bet in any form?
As far as citing the wrong statute, as I said, I cited the only statute that came up when I searched the Utah code for "reckless endangerment." None came up in the sections that pertain to game laws. You're the one that used the term reckless, not me. And what statutes did you cite? Jack and squat.
And you keep talking about my lack of legal training but here's a news flash Bob: I'm not the one making a legal argument here, and I'm not the one saying that this guy broke the law, that would be you. So what's your legal training?
My argument is common sense, and it goes like this: Only an idiot would think that the act of taking a shot (however ill-advised) at a big game animal you're legally attempting to kill would constitute a crime that meets the criteria for being either reckless or endangerment.
You're legally trying to kill the thing for cryin' out loud. By legally shooting bullets at it. What could you possibly do that recklessly endangers it more than that? As a matter of fact, by taking a head shot at 900 yards instead of getting closer or going for the lungs, this guy was apparently doing just the opposite.
As far as me not getting "the gist of what you were saying" or not knowing "how to read a statute and apply it to a given set of facts," nice try. If "others got it right away," who were they and what did they say that gave you the idea they agree that laws were broken? I must've missed the part where others chimed in and agreed with you, can you show it to me?
You didn't take the bet because you're chicken-sh**. You'd love to prove me wrong and you know it. Kid stuff? Running your mouth and being afraid to back it up, now that's kid stuff.
Doesn't matter, we'll know soon enough if this guy gets charged. The thing is, I'd rather place a bet, be wrong, and lose than run my mouth, chicken out, and be right.
Lastly, yep I could use $100, please send it to me.
I didn't think so. Apparently, it's easier for me to part with $100 than for you.
