Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Claude Dallas getting out in Feb!

Game wardens have always had reputations as being overbearing when compared to other LEOs. My own experiences with em have mostly been positive, if you are polite to them then they are usually polite back. Some are just plain gung-ho.

One always hears of a certain game warden who overstepped his authority, usually some rambunctious type. Years ago, the entire Utah state DWR law enforcement was revamped after too many complaints of abuse to the govenor.

I do think game wardens have one of the toughest jobs out there, putting in alot of hours to catch some dirtbag poacher.

MtnHtr

This has been an interesting post to read considering I had never heard of Claude Dallas before yesterday.

Can someone paint me a better picture of how the killings supposedly went down? What story did the jury hear?

From what I've read thus far, it seems he shot them with a pistol and then finished them off with a rifle "execution style"...what was the reasoning for using the rifle to finish them off? I wouldn't call him a criminal just b/c he finished them off, but what I question is why use the rifle if it was execution style (which I invision being close range)?

If he was defending himself and there was distance between he and the officers, it would make sense that he would grab a rifle to make sure they were dead at what felt like safe distance...instead of approaching them to do if up close with the pistol and taking the chance that if not completely dead they could snap off a quick shot at him. BUT, it just doesn't make sense to have a pistol in your hand, put it down, and then grab a rifle to shoot them up close. There could be details I've missed or just don't know, like him running out of ammo with the pistol...this is just one of many things that stuck out to me.

As I remember from reading the above menbtioned book several years ago, Dallas mortally wounded both wardens with one shot each from a 357 mag. He then walked to his tent, retrieved a 22LR and delivered a "coup de grace" to each officer rather than stand and watch them bleed out.

There was another thread on this subject a few days ago. Here is a link in case you are interested and missed it.
https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads...true#Post418714

Im not going to guess on Idaho law but California law does not allow anyone to resist arrest but it does allow someone to resist unlawful force. If Dallas feared for his life he could have shot both of the officers, claimed self defense and walked with a good attorney. What baffles me is that he could finish them off with a rifle and not be convicted of murder.

just curious, would it make a different in your opinions in this matter if the dead men were just regular people and not law inforcement officers?
there are always 2 sides to a story and the court seems to have heard both sides and agreed with DALLAS to some extent.
just because the dead men are law officers doesn't get him the guilty verdict from the jury or ME.
i admit i'm not familiar with this case and i'm not defending him in any way, but a person should get his day in court and not in the media.
sambo

Well, he got his day in court, was found guilty, spent his time in prison, and paid his debt to society.

I reread "Give A Boy A Gun" last night.

The jury decided that Dallas was guilty of manslaughter, however, since each case must be judged on its own merits, the jury didn't hear about Dallas' long history as a game law violator. Also, the defense put the dead men, Pogue/Elms, on trial and were successful in vilifyng them with a bunch of unsupported, "I heard" and "I know a guy who heard", character assassinations. The prosecution wasn't nearly as effective in their efforts to convince the jury that Dallas wasn't a romantic figure who was living off the land and minding his own business.

In contrast to what some have written here, there was no mention in the book of any "bad blood" or direct prior contact between Dallas and Pogue/Elms, although Dallas was well known in Nevada and Idaho as a chronic garme law violator. Dallas' illegal trapping at Bull Basin was reported to Pogue by 2 local ranchers, the Carlins. The younger Carlin had been to Bull Basin, had spoken with Dallas, and had seen a bobcat pelt that Dallas admitted to have taken prior to the opening of the season. Perhaps the younger Carlin's information gave Pogue/Elms the probable cause necessary for them to search Dallas' tent and find the evidence of illegal hunting/trapping that they must have found, if they were planning to haul him in to jail.

Jim Stevens, the acquaintance of Dallas' who was present through the whole action, testified for the prosecution, not for the defense. Steven testified that Pogue/Elms disarmed him by removing the cartridges from his revolver and that they did the same to Dallas, who was carrying a pistol/revolver outside his coat. It appears that Pogue/Elms screwed up when they didn't pat Dallas down. If they had, they would have discovered that he was carrying a concealed revolver under his coat. That was the revolver that he initially shot them with. Steven reported that Elms was carrying his revolver/pistol in shoulder holster under his coat and never had a chance to draw his gun before Dallas shot him down.

Regardless of whether Dallas got off easy or not, he'll be getting out of prison in a few days and will be as free as any other convicted felon. I suspect that, wherever he settles, every LEO in the area will be watching him in the same way that you, or I, would watch a known sex offender who moved into our neighborhood.

Jeff

An FBI agent had a letter to the editor of a trapping periodical a few years ago. (Can't remember the name, same format as Shotgun News).
In that letter, the FBI agent talked about an assignment he and some fellow agents were on in the jurisdiction of the warden that Dallas killed, Bill Pogue. Pogue came into their camp at night, before he realized they were FBI that they nearly killed him, fearing for THEIR lives. Pogue, from eveything I read, was a belligerent, abusive man that liked to abuse his power. Dallas had never exhibited any violence prior to the run in with Pogue, and that apparently played a huge factor in Dallas not being executed. One witness to the trial said that if Dallas had not shot both men again in the back of the head, he probably would have been acquitted.

Royce

All I know about this case is what I have read. The way I interpret the information, the stories about Pogue being abusive were unsubstantiated. If they were true, it is hard to believe that the hierarchy in the Idaho F&G wouldn't have kept him on a very short leash. It is a common practice for defense attornys to vilify the LEOs who are involved in their cases, since they only need to raise the specter of doubt in the minds of the jury members.

Based solely upon what I have read, I think that a person who hadn't commited a game violation wouldn't have any trouble with either Pogue or Elms. I have always found that being polite and respectful to an LEO gets you further than does an angry manner. A person who had violated the law, as Dallas had done by taking the bobcat that Carlin saw, should expect to get due process, as that was what the State of Idaho employed Pogue and Elms to do, catch game violators. I am almost always willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the LEO, particularly in cases where the defendant is known to violate the law.

Jeff

I worked with a couple of game wardens in the old Montana F&G (1950s, 1960 � I was a biologist, not a warden) who richly deserved and invited killing but were still alive only because it was illegal to kill 'em. Jim F was especially bad � it was obvious to all who knew him that he longed for an excuse to kill somebody legally. As it was, he delighted in any excuse or opportunity to beat the pee out of any fisherman or hunter who gave him the least excuse. He once sneaked-up on a fisherman and without any preamble opened the man's bait bucket. The man slammed the lid on Jim's hand. With a delighted grin, Jim (a martial-arts and physical-fitness guy) beat him to pulp.

If either of the Idaho wardens was as bad as Jim F, he invited killing. BUT killing him would still be illegal unless there was a good case for self-defense (easy to imagine).

So I don't know enough to judge the extent of Claude Dallas's guilt. A jury who heard the official presentation of the evidence judged that, and a judge sentenced him to a prison term that's about to end. That's enough for me.

Except for a special curiosity.

Last summer, a friend here bought a copy of my book for a gift and brought it over for me to sign it. He planned to present it to a friend of his this month, when the recipient was scheduled to be released from prison. So I signed that copy of my book to Claude Dallas. Naturally, I'm curious about whether I'll ever hear from him and what kind of fellow he is now, after a few years "in stir" to think about those shots that he fired so many years ago.

I can't ever excuse killing a law enforcement officer or anybody else unless in fear of my life or to protect somebody else. As I recall, everybody knew Dallas was an outlaw and routinely poached game including desert big horns. The finishing shots to the wardens heads were one example that showed that he believed he was beyond reproach. Then, if I recall correctly, he dragged the warden's bodies up the hill to his truck using his mule and an appropriately long rope so he could hide the bodies. He buried the bodies and at least one of them wasn't even found until after the trial.

Dallas broke out of jail. I believe Dallas thought he was above the law. I believe the law is you and me and it is for you and me. The law is what gives us civility and order in our lives. Without it or with a disregard of the law, we are all at risk. Dallas believed he was above the law and had no regard for it.

I cannot and will not condone what Dallas did or cannot contrive any justification for it. The people of Idaho are of better character than the image that Dallas and the Ruby ridge guy (and the Feds involved at Ruby Ridge) have portrayed. I am ashamed that these two incidents even happened in Idaho. Idahoans are better than that. Frankly the Ruby Ridge incident should not have happened anywhere.

If the facts of the casre are true that Dallas shot in self defense, let each of us ponder in our minds what we would have done had we been in a similar situation where, though we were breaking laws, there was a deadly situation and violent LEO's who seemed bent on doing harm or worse and "Due Process" was not going to happen? There you are in a shoot or be shot situation and there are no negotiations. I am pretty sure I would have shot too. Only God knows for sure what happened that terrible day.

Now for Ruby Ridge: Come on man! That was a "witch hunt" for extremists. It can easily happen again. If R. Weaver is a White Supremist, it is his right to be one. You cannot force people to be tolorant. I am not racist but you have to remember that each of us has the right to our beliefs. As far as anyone knew, Randy Weaver had never commited violent crimes on behalf of his beliefs. You cannot judge others according to how you see that Idahoans should be or are supposedly are according to your opinion.

I have lived in Idaho for about 5 years. I see good people here, but I have traveled a lot of places in most states and several countries and I see good people everywhere.

I have my beliefs and they are precious to me. One day the LEO might come for me and call me a threat to the Nation. If it comes to such a situation and negotiations and due precess is nonexistant, then I will likely shoot too.

CM

.260 rem,

by the justice depts report (available online) the shotgun that randy weaver sold was of legal length...
the agents who set him up measured the barrel length from the end of the chamber and assumed that it was illegal...
the shotguns barrel, when properly measured in the courtroom, from the breachface , was of legal length.....

i don't know randy weaver, and i don't make him out to be a hero from the events at ruby ridge.
i do believe that law enforcement in America needs to be a local issue..... elect a sheriff who will do the job and let it be..... there is no reason for the federal government to use arrest powers for a local crime..... john w

The "facts" of any case hinge on the interpretation of what the witness/witnesses saw from the his/her/their position. In this case, the only 2 survivors were Dallas, the killer, and Stevens, the non-participant friend of Dallas'. Dallas testified that he was threatened, but Stevens didn't see it that way. If he had, don't you think that he would have testified in that manner?

Even if you think that Pogue was a strict and over-bearing LEO, Dallas' killing of Elms was totally without merit, IF, as according to Stevens, Elms never had a chance to draw his weapon. Dallas COULD have threatened to shoot Elms and, if he had stopped, not shot and killed him. There was no testimony to that effect.

It appears to me, somebody who doesn't hold a JD, that the defense team just did a better job than the prosecuting team. The defense put Pogue on trial and managed to vilify him in the minds of the jurors, such that the prosecution tried, but couldn't undo the character assassination that had already settled in the minds of the jurors. Remember, the prosecution was able to rebut many of the witnesses who testified against Pogue.

Although the Judge couldn't influence the jury in their manslaughter decision, he did sentence Dallas to 30 years in prison, based on the "facts" that were presented and the pre-sentencing investigation. He was allowed to take Dallas' long previous history of game violations into account as well as the knowledge that Dallas was very practiced at the art of handgun combat. Those 2 points of fact weren't presented to the jury and might have influenced them toward a harsher sentence if they had been admissible.

I think that anyone who runs from, or resists, an LEO is asking for trouble. It is my opinion that you want to calm what is already a tense situation, rather than inflame it.

Jeff

Gun violations, such as manufacturing a sawed-off shotgun, are a Federal violation that falls under the the BATF, not local law enforcement.

I really don't have any interest in Ruby Ridge or Waco. I am interested in the killing of Bill Pogue and Conley Elms because I think that they were murdered, Elms particularly so, and JJ initially compared their killing to Ruby Ridge. I don't think there are any similarities.

Jeff

The facts are that Stevens never saw the shooting. He was in a tent. If he had saw the shooting and testified there was no threat, Dallas would have been on death row or dead already. Stevens had taken Elms into the tent to show him the furs. That is when Dallas shot Pogue. The only living witnesses are Dallas and God. Elms was shot as he came from the tent with his gun drawn. Stenvens saw that shooting, not the first deadly encounter with Pogue.

CM

CM

The ATF is an unconsitutional orgaization. Even though, the ATF messed up when measuring the barrel lenght of the shotgun as they typically mess up most things they become involved in.

CM

Your version doesn't match Olsen's and I choose to believe my interpretation of Olsen's works/research until I read something that changes my mind.

I believe that Dallas wasn't convicted of murder because of the vilification of Pogue. I don't believe Dallas is any more innocent than O.J. Simpson. In both cases, the defense put the law enforcement officers on trial and managed to convince the jury that their client was a sympathetic figure. The judge, who knew more than the jury was allowed to know, didn't believe that Dallas was innocent either.

Wouldn't it be ironic if Mrs. Pogue and/or Mrs. Elms filed civil litigation against Dallas in that way that the Goldman family did?

Jeff

Claud did his time and now is getting out. We are shooting in the dark with our opinions, because no one knows what really happened to esclate the events leading to 2 lives lost.
I like cops and I have several friends who wear/wore badges from F&G to the FBI, all extreamly nice folks. I have also met the other side that wear/wore badges. One in particular stands out in my mind. He was a young gung-ho P-R-I-C-K, who decided that a friend, that had just closed the doors to the gunshop for the day, and I were up to no good, talking at the curb, standing next to my pick-up. Well, he proceeded to tell us that we could either go home, or he could take us to jail. It was only 5:30 pm, so I went home and promptly called the chief and voiced a complaint. It didn't seem to do much immediate good. About 9 months later, a Sargent on the same police force informed me that the little fellow was no longer employed with them. Seems that for several months, he had been roving around at night going to where young couples parked. He would demand that the girl get out,pull her dress up, or pull her pants down to make sure she was wearing panties, thereby ensuring the couple wasn't breaking the obscenity laws. He finally picked a girl whose father had enough clout to get the little pervert fired. So with law enforcement, just as in any other occupation, there are some very fine folks and then, there are some certifiable jerks.
Not knowing all the facts, I haven't formed an opinion on the subjects.

Look up the Tueller drill. It's obvious you won't take any opinion that doesn't agree with what you've read of someone else's opinion.

I am just relating the story as told in "Give A Boy A Gun".

See, I've cited my source of information. Heck, if you want, I can even cite it by page and paragraph. No, "well I've heard" or "it was well known" from me. Actually, I did go as far as looking up Tim Nettleton's telephone number on www.USA.com, but I decided that it would be too intrusive for me to call him and ask him if he would be interested in commenting on this thread.

The thing about this thread that disappoints me is that so many people are willing to accept that Pogue and Elms were abusive and overbearing and that Dallas might have been justified in killing them. Heck, they knew that Dallas had broken the law even before they got to Bull Basin, since Carlin told them that Dallas had admitted taking a bobcat out of season. I suspect that they arrived expecting to find a violation, they found a couple of violations, and a violator who was angry about being taken in for breaking those laws. What were the Pogue and Elms suppossed to do, ignore the violations and go on their ways? They had already ticketed another trapper that Carlin told them about earlier on the day that they were killed.

I read about the Tueller drill. Probably Dallas did too, since he was practiced in combat handgun shooting. The prosecution wanted to introduce Dallas' combat shooting books into evidence, but the Judge decided that they might prejudice the jury. Maybe the guy who killed all of those hunters in WI read about it too. Hey, there's a thought, maybe he'll get a jury to believe that he didn't murder those people because he felt threatened. Hey, maybe his attornys will seek out and talk victim vilification strategy with Dallas' attornys. Wouldn't that be something!

If I can get ahold of the trial transcript, I'll share it with you if you'd like.

Jeff