Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bed Wetter" data-source="post: 257076" data-attributes="member: 428">Here’s how I think it went down:Even if they didn't have clear video evidence, they talk to his deputy buddy who was a witness. &quot;We have video of the fish being caught. You made a sworn statement that it was mouth hooked. If you're lying to us, you can't serve as a credible witness when you arrest someone, which will get prior, current, and future criminal cases that you’ve been involved in thrown out. Your law enforcement career will be over. You're sure it wasn't snagged?&quot;So now the deputy, afraid he’s going to lose his livelihood convinces himself maybe he didn’t really see what he saw when he netted snagzilla and “retracts” his original statement. So now all we have is hearsay and witnesses who say “it looked snagged.” Trying to salvage their credibility, G&amp;F says, “the old record stands” because they don’t want decades of speculation and a tainted record. However, they don’t have evidence to charge the guy with keeping an illegally taken walleye, which is the only reason why they couldn’t confiscate it.This truly is bullshit. I think he should keep the fish AND the record unless they have enough to prove in court that it was illegally taken.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bed Wetter, post: 257076, member: 428"] Here’s how I think it went down: Even if they didn't have clear video evidence, they talk to his deputy buddy who was a witness. "We have video of the fish being caught. You made a sworn statement that it was mouth hooked. If you're lying to us, you can't serve as a credible witness when you arrest someone, which will get prior, current, and future criminal cases that you’ve been involved in thrown out. Your law enforcement career will be over. You're sure it wasn't snagged?" So now the deputy, afraid he’s going to lose his livelihood convinces himself maybe he didn’t really see what he saw when he netted snagzilla and “retracts” his original statement. So now all we have is hearsay and witnesses who say “it looked snagged.” Trying to salvage their credibility, G&F says, “the old record stands” because they don’t want decades of speculation and a tainted record. However, they don’t have evidence to charge the guy with keeping an illegally taken walleye, which is the only reason why they couldn’t confiscate it. This truly is bullshit. I think he should keep the fish AND the record unless they have enough to prove in court that it was illegally taken. [/QUOTE]

Verification

What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA