Posted on 07/19/2007 10:24:04 AM PDT by TexasCajun
Actually you could be prosecuted for violating US law in another country. However, in this case he is being prosecuted for violating Russian law in Russia rather than violating US law.
The prosecutors are apparently trying to make an end run around that by charging him with breaking a US law, but for his actions to be illegal in the US he had to have first broken the Russian law, with which he has not been even charged. However, despite him not being charged, tried, or convicted of illegally shooting these animals, the US now wants to charge him with a felony for transporting illegally captured animals.
The missing piece is that it has not been established in a court of law that they were captured illegally, and since it isn't a US law, the US government lacks the authority to try him for that alleged crime.
Liddy may be a RINO, but she did the right thing on Immigration, so she’s not on my hate-list at the moment.
"Actually you would have broken the laws of the United States. Those things are illegal here in the United States and as a US citizen, you can be prosecuted here in the US for doing such things outside the US.
However, shooting such animals from a helicopter isn't illegal here. It may not be very sporting, but it's not illegal here."
I await your response with eager anticipation.
I await your response with eager anticipation.
I stand corrected! It sounds like they may have a basis in our law for saying that the animals were illegally captured, which contradicts my argument. Thanks for pointing out my error.
He is not being charged in Russia - and secondly, you do realize that when you eat meat that it came from an animal that was ummm... killed don’t you?
One story after another of corrupt prosecutors. Nifong is the tip of the iceberg.
He's known as the Wilt Chamberlain of hunting...
This peckerless little pissant sociopath spent millions on "hunting trips", paying extra to be sure he shot "trophies" that would be in Boone and Crockett, when he could have gotten off his gun by going to Iowa Beef with a sledge hammer and smacking cows between the eyes.
Many of these posts look like a DU convention here.
Point #1.
Only operative purpose of original posting to show misapplied law which is moot since outside US jurisdiction.
Unless Endangered species with mutual country agreements in place (treaties) then all Wasted paperwork and mismanagement of tax $ .
Point #2
“Sport” ….. many of you have been brainwashed if you think hunting should be sporting. Very unethical to make a game of killing animals. Killing for food, protection of self or property about only ethical reasons.
To kill game (please don’t use words “harvesting” /”taking” –like saying fetus vs baby.)
The real hero in a River Runs Thru It, is the guy who uses the can of worms.
It's probably apropos of everything...what's the prosecutor's connection to Hillary's campaign?
You compare hunting game animals to abortion?
Hunting is a sport sport! ..when done legally!
You sound like some tree-hugger PETA type.
Sorta like going to Canada, buying and smoking a couple of Cuban cigars (legally) then being federally prosecuted upon your return for breaking the Cuban embargo.
Actually you could be prosecuted for violating US law in another country
So are you saying it is illegal for a US citizen to purchase and smoke a Cuban cigar in Canada?
That’s actualy NOT the case. U.S. law only applies in territories where the U.S. has JURISDICTION. The U.S. has no JURISDICTION for acts commited solely on RUSSIAN soveriegn soil. The U.S. has no legal authority to prosecute you for something like that. You could go to Russia and kill a Russian citizen and no U.S. court could prosecute you for it..... They could however extradite you to a Russian court to do so. The same reason why a California court cant properly prosecute you for violating a California State statue for act commited solely in Texas
(i.e. if pheasant season in CAL runs from Oct. to Dec. and you shoot a pheasant in TX in Feb., CAL can’t prosecute you for poaching.... it’s TX law that governs in TX.)
NOTE: The crime he is being charged with is NOT hunting illegaly from an aircraft in Russia. That is because the U.S CANNOT charge him with that crime, it lacks proper jurisdiction. The crime he IS being charged with is BRINGING ILLEGALY TAKEN ANIMALS INTO THE U.S.,..... that’s where the U.S. gets it jurrisdiction...when he brings something onto U.S. territory..... the absurdity is that there is absolutely ZERO evidence that what he brought in was illegaly taken.... since there isn’t even a criminal complaint filled in Russia... which make the whole thing pretty evident as some sort of witch hunt.
Agreed but, prosecuting this in the United States is ridiculous. Did Nifong get his license back and is practicing in Virginia.
I might not agree with how he killed the animal, but I really dont think the US government has any right to prosecute this man for something he did overseas - and because of that - I would defend him.
It's the condemnation by his peers that I would like to see. To have his coffee mug at the Safari Club ritually smashed, all of his stuffed heads sprayed with yellow paint and shipped back to him, all entries of his in the record books deleted, and his Boone and Crockett membership form red-exed and mailed to him.
Think of how it would be if, every time he walked into his club, he would be asked if he had slaughtered any kittens recently. Justice is not always "due process."
Yes, I smell a witch hunt.
Shooting from the air or from moving vehicles is wrong, but this prosecution is also wrong.
I don’t know if Mr. Duncan is a major GOP donor, but look for such people to be targeted for prosecution by Rat DA’s, or even Rats on the staffs of DA’s, as we move into ‘08.
You’re creative!
Just curious: Have any of these things been done to people who violated hunting ethics?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.