Arguing with a BC CO in the butcher shop..... hmmmmmm

4

45ACPKING

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
291   0   3
Wow ..... I mean how do these morons get thier jobs?
As I was leaving my butcher today from picking up boxes of meat from my hunting season thus far, I commented to my butcher that I still needed to fill one more deer tag.
That's when the CO that was looking at the books came around the corner and asked to see my licence and tags. Having killed two mule deer already he got all in a huff and was going to have to take my boxes of meat and consult his superior.
I promptly walked over and closed the hatch on the cherokee and said...... you need to do what now?

He said as far as he was aware, I was only allowed one mule deer for the province and seeing as I had punched two mulie tags..... he was "pretty sure" I was in violation of the new hunting regs on mule deer.
I scoffed at him ...... I got right down rude actually LOL
Little pissant , barely even 30 with his spotless uniform on and shiny clean truck LOL Fack Off now.
So I very clearly spelled it out for him that region 2 is not part of the provinces Mule deer restrictions and the bag limit there is 2 bucks per season. Shoot them minutes apart , weeks apart, makes no difference, the bag limit is 2 bucks. The deer in region 2 are classified as Black Tails but count as a mulie tag.
So having killed my 3pt mulie in region 5 means no more mule deer in a bunch of regions other than a doe by LEH..... but the provincial bag limit is still 3 deer , mulies or whitetail.
The guy went purple and told me I was wrong and I was to remain untill his superior arrived.
I said nope..... I got meat to get in the freezer and I have no time for law enforcement that doesn't even know the laws they are trying to enforce.
I got in my truck and drove away.

So here I am reading the regs over and over, I know I'm right, it's crystal clear in the regs and online....... so I sit on my couch and wait to see if the "superior" shows up in my driveway..... and I think I'm going to pen a nasty letter to the head of the BC conservation officer department and to the Minister in charge of hunting.

We all need to push back against this kind of crap and also push back against the ridiculous Mule deer restrictions that have been applied in this province.
 
I would like to think I would have said the same thing. Actually, I probably would have pulled the regs up on my phone, showed him he's wrong, then tell him to go pound sand...
 
I bet he cut your tag in the system under the special notes file......make sure your eyes are crossed and your tees are crossed on your next trip out into the woods.........
 
Good that you stood up and told him the rules.
Many hunters are probably not as aware as you are and would walk away having lost their meat and a bunch of tickets.
 
In general I've never really had much problems with CO's
It's also extremely easy to be fully legal while hunting or carry firearms and wildlife so I don't ever worry whether my Tees or eyeballs are crossed or not ;)
I shoot straight, plain and simple..... and don't suffer fools even if they have a badge and a gun. I've been this way my entire life and am never afraid to hold the "authority" accountable on the spot.... ever..... and I've done so a great many times. Believe me, the absolutely is a flag on my name in the system..... it happened a very long time ago and most likely reads "do not disturb" LOL
 
45ACPKING said:
In general I've never really had much problems with CO's
It's also extremely easy to be fully legal while hunting or carry firearms and wildlife so I don't ever worry whether my Tees or eyeballs are crossed or not ;)
I shoot straight, plain and simple..... and don't suffer fools even if they have a badge and a gun. I've been this way my entire life and am never afraid to hold the "authority" accountable on the spot.... ever..... and I've done so a great many times. Believe me, the absolutely is a flag on my name in the system..... it happened a very long time ago and most likely reads "do not disturb" LOL
Click to expand...

I am with you all the way on this
If i know i aint done anything wrong
I take no schitt off any LEO
 
Know your rights and know your authority to defend oneself and their property


Defence — use or threat of force

34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if

(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;

(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and

(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

Marginal note:Factors

(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:

(a) the nature of the force or threat;

(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;

(c) the person’s role in the incident;

(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;

(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;

(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;

(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;

(g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and

(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.

Marginal note:No defence

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the force is used or threatened by another person for the purpose of doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.

Defence of Property

Marginal note:Defence — property

35 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if

(a) they either believe on reasonable grounds that they are in peaceable possession of property or are acting under the authority of, or lawfully assisting, a person whom they believe on reasonable grounds is in peaceable possession of property;

(b) they believe on reasonable grounds that another person

(i) is about to enter, is entering or has entered the property without being entitled by law to do so,

(ii) is about to take the property, is doing so or has just done so, or

(iii) is about to damage or destroy the property, or make it inoperative, or is doing so;

(c) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of

(i) preventing the other person from entering the property, or removing that person from the property, or

(ii) preventing the other person from taking, damaging or destroying the property or from making it inoperative, or retaking the property from that person; and

(d) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

Marginal note:No defence

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person who believes on reasonable grounds that they are, or who is believed on reasonable grounds to be, in peaceable possession of the property does not have a claim of right to it and the other person is entitled to its possession by law.

Marginal note:No defence

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the other person is doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.
 
45ACPKING said:
In general I've never really had much problems with CO's
It's also extremely easy to be fully legal while hunting or carry firearms and wildlife so I don't ever worry whether my Tees or eyeballs are crossed or not ;)
I shoot straight, plain and simple..... and don't suffer fools even if they have a badge and a gun. I've been this way my entire life and am never afraid to hold the "authority" accountable on the spot.... ever..... and I've done so a great many times. Believe me, the absolutely is a flag on my name in the system..... it happened a very long time ago and most likely reads "do not disturb" LOL
Click to expand...

lol, i didn't see who posted it until after I replied.........

we had a young kid on the coast, used to play with his holster and the snap on it, so one day while getting the usual 20 questions I loaded my rifle, he got nervous and asked what i was doing, told him i was leveling the playing field and hung my rifle on my shoulder, he asked me to unload it and put it back in the truck, I said sure, you first.......take the handgun off the hip and we can talk.....you keep playing with the snap like your trying to intimidate me and yet you don't like playing on a level playing field......we parted ways shortly there after and word from the others was he learned to talk to people with his arms folded across his chest hiding his name tag LOL
 
Outcast said:
Know your rights and know your authority to defend oneself and their property


Defence — use or threat of force

34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if

(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;

(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and

(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

Marginal note:Factors

(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:

(a) the nature of the force or threat;

(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;

(c) the person’s role in the incident;

(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;

(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;

(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;

(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;

(g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and

(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.

Marginal note:No defence

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the force is used or threatened by another person for the purpose of doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.

Defence of Property

Marginal note:Defence — property

35 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if

(a) they either believe on reasonable grounds that they are in peaceable possession of property or are acting under the authority of, or lawfully assisting, a person whom they believe on reasonable grounds is in peaceable possession of property;

(b) they believe on reasonable grounds that another person

(i) is about to enter, is entering or has entered the property without being entitled by law to do so,

(ii) is about to take the property, is doing so or has just done so, or

(iii) is about to damage or destroy the property, or make it inoperative, or is doing so;

(c) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of

(i) preventing the other person from entering the property, or removing that person from the property, or

(ii) preventing the other person from taking, damaging or destroying the property or from making it inoperative, or retaking the property from that person; and

(d) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

Marginal note:No defence

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person who believes on reasonable grounds that they are, or who is believed on reasonable grounds to be, in peaceable possession of the property does not have a claim of right to it and the other person is entitled to its possession by law.

Marginal note:No defence

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the other person is doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.
Click to expand...

What does this mule deer story have with using force to protect your property ???
Is that what you're advocating ??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom