Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Game Warden Kills 76 Year Old Man

Unfortunately the job of an attorney is to discredit a witnesses testimony or at the very least weaken it, things like that can scar a little child for the rest of their lives. I am sure some kids can take but some can't, those things have to be taken into consideration.

To exclude the only eye witness in a murder trial would require raising the bar mighty high. I was more surprised at the assertion, which perhaps I misunderstood, that such a witness wouldn't be allowed at all.

To the point of abusive direct or cross of a child, that is one reason a judge is there. It's not like it is on TV.

raamw

If you want to consider scarring a child for life, consider requiring them to testify in a child sexual abuse case. I know the miscreant must be stopped, but I think the cost to the victim in testifying is just as great as being a victim. However, I don't have a palatable solution to that.

The point if you allow belligerent people to break the law than only the decent people will get cited that is called stereo typing, we will only enforce the laws on the weak and timid

It's worse than that, they make you pay for the right to live on your own proprety.
Property tax.

I agree there should be special rules when a child is used and there is but it opens up the "mistrial" problems of restricting the cross and so on

Yes it does, but you also have the problem of a divorcing couple where one party makes such an accusation against the other for financial or custodial gain.

Hard cases make bad law.

Actually your property taxes are assesed by county entities that provide services

I agree I don't care for the right to trespass unless they have probable cause that a crime has or is being committed but the powers to be granted them that right and we will have to live with that until it is overturned or modified. All police have that right especially in the HOT pursuit" or eminent danger theory

Divorce is civil law and the level of proof to win is a preponderance of evident that something occurred criminal law is beyond a reasonable doubt which leaves very little question marks if any to get a guity prime example the infamous OJ Simpson, beats the criminal case of multiple murders but convicted in the civil case of those murders.

I am aware of the difference. Your point eludes me.

heavymetal,
are you fishing on the reservation or in NC waters?

What I actually said was:



Notice the question marks ?? It was a question not an assertion....I would think a good defence attorney would take a child part on the witness stand, especially in this case where he could raise questions about the childs impartiality ect...

Whether that is a legitimate legal approach, I don't know...And if it was, I don't know whether such an approach would in the end be counterproductive in front of a jury???

I don't have an opinion on the matter as I am not familiar with American Law nor the day to day workings of your courts, hence the question...

Gonna be a pretty short case, witness can't testify, shooter can't and shootie is dead.

Here's hoping a turkey saw it.

Yeah, but that's according to who? Oh yeah, the GW who's the only one still alive. But hey, no worries. A GW would never lie to cover his own ass. Right?



An excellent observation. I'd love to hear the GW's explanation of how a 76 year old man came down a rope ladder while somehow simutaniously holding a shotgun in such a menacing fashion that he felt like he had no choice but to open fire. Here's another thought. If the old man really intended to kill the GW why would he have to climb down to do it? What was he carrying on that turkey hunt that required him to get that close? A sawed off .410?



True. Pretty awesome power to hand people there. Want to kill everyone you don't like? Hey, then just become a GW and catch them in the woods on a hunt. "He threatened me your honor and he had a gun". "Good work son, you're free to go".



And you've conveniently glossed over the fact that we are taking the GWs word that the old man said that. What would you expect the GW to say? "F%$# him, he pissed me off so I shot the old basT#@#." Not likely! When you are only left with one side of a story you can bet your ass that story is gonna paint the lone survivor in the best possible light.



What's to stop him? All he has to do is say she threatened him.



We have had some game wardens here that hunted. Unfortunately they mostly hunted at night. I don't know what it is about the GW profession but they seem to have about 5 times more bad apples in their barrel than any other branch of law enforcement. Hell, we even had one here that planted a silencer in a guys house and got him sent to federal prison for 2 years. Why? Cause they were both screwing around with the same woman. One way to get rid of the competition I guess. Now I guess another way is to catch them near a corn pile and open fire.

I'm with you. But take out everything starting with "particularly" and you have my question. As I said, I wasn't challenging you.

Again just a question on my part..

In the England and Wales, a child must be of the the age of legal resposibility (1O years old) before they can be prosecuted in court. I was wondering if the reverse might be true ie they must be a certain age before they are considered old enough to be reliable in a criminal court???

Could a young childs testimony alone be enough to convict "beyond all reasonable doubt" for instance??

As I said above, there are plenty of pedophiles and other P'sOS in prison on the testimony of 7-10 year olds.

It could but it would certainly be examined closely. See Isaac's post. Once the child is qualified for truth and ability to communicate what happened, it would be a jury question as to how much weight to give the testimony.

A rule that flat excluded otherwise competent testimony merely due to age would, IMO, be extremely unfortunate. On the other hand allowing such testimony, knowing that is is unreliable, would be equally unfortunate.

Case by case basis in my jurisdiction. The younger the child, the higher the bar to qualify.

IIRC Wilkes County was once thought to be the moonshine capital of the universe<or something like that>. I remember talking to an older gentleman down there once who made the complaint that "Young people these days don't want to work... they just grow pot. When I was young it was hard darn work hauling all that corn on your own back... anyone who built their still in a place you could drive to didn't last too long...".

Threating to shoot lawmen who come out into the woods where you have your corn may just be a cultural thing in Wilkes... Just saying.

Thanks for that gents,

So would the fact the child was related to the deceased have any bearing as a witness?
Or would it be up to the Defense lawyer to show that the child was being biased or otherwise being minipulated??

Regards,

Peter