3 ms·

These were game wardens. It's quite literally their job to enforce the laws regarding hunting/game/etc.

bell-cot 3y ago
Game wardens should be neither mindless enforcement bots, nor "we'll show you who's boss, punk!" machos. If (per the the article) both Pennsylvania and other states are busy moving toward de-criminalization - well, gosh, it sure sounds like top-level government policy makers believe the "crime" is neither bad, nor worth using state resources to discourage. Maybe the game wardens could take a hint from their way-up-at-the-top bosses? Or - > “The Legislature needs to address this,” Magisterial District Court Judge Raymond Sheller said while delivering his verdict, according to the Associated Press. “Everyone is playing catchup to science.” - which seems to loudly hint that, from the PoV of current best practices for wildlife management, the "crime" is reasonable/acceptable/responsible behavior. Game wardens are supposed to know and care a bit about that kinda stuff, aren't they?
- alistairSH 3y ago
  Game wardens are law enforcement officers. They should be enforcing the law as written. Anything else undermines the rule of law and leads to selective enforcement. If the government truly wants to make spotlighting with a drone legal, the correct place for intervention is at the DA level. They could have chosen not to prosecute. And regardless of the drone, spotlighting is still illegal and for good reason. It would never make sense to allow spotlighting from a drone but not from ground - that defeats the purpose of banning spotlighting. If the state does make spotlighting legal, that's fine I guess (I disagree, but don't live in PA).
  - bell-cot 3y ago
    > They should be enforcing the law as written. Anything else... Ah - you live in one of those towns that writes tickets for driving 1 MPH over the speed limit, or jaywalking across an empty street, or having a burned out brake light, or ... correct?
    - alistairSH 3y ago
      should not are As for officer discretion, I'd prefer they had less. But even still, there's a pretty massive difference between mindlessly speeding by a small margin (which isn't even a criminal offense in the US) and doing something that explicitly illegal and impossible to do without forethought (spotlight deer).
  - samatman 3y ago
    They aren't omnipresent and can't literally enforce every clause of every law under their jurisdiction. That gives them some latitude in what they do with their 40 hours and overtime. I would say using that time on a guy who is doing something which might not be illegal in a couple months is a dickish use of that discretion. Their hands aren't tied here.
Vicinity9635 3y ago
[dead]

Game wardens should be neither mindless enforcement bots, nor "we'll show you who's boss, punk!" machos. If (per the the article) both Pennsylvania and other states are busy moving toward de-criminalization - well, gosh, it sure sounds like top-level government policy makers believe the "crime" is neither bad, nor worth using state resources to discourage. Maybe the game wardens could take a hint from their way-up-at-the-top bosses? Or - > “The Legislature needs to address this,” Magisterial District Court Judge Raymond Sheller said while delivering his verdict, according to the Associated Press. “Everyone is playing catchup to science.” - which seems to loudly hint that, from the PoV of current best practices for wildlife management, the "crime" is reasonable/acceptable/responsible behavior. Game wardens are supposed to know and care a bit about that kinda stuff, aren't they?

alistairSH 3y ago
Game wardens are law enforcement officers. They should be enforcing the law as written. Anything else undermines the rule of law and leads to selective enforcement. If the government truly wants to make spotlighting with a drone legal, the correct place for intervention is at the DA level. They could have chosen not to prosecute. And regardless of the drone, spotlighting is still illegal and for good reason. It would never make sense to allow spotlighting from a drone but not from ground - that defeats the purpose of banning spotlighting. If the state does make spotlighting legal, that's fine I guess (I disagree, but don't live in PA).
- bell-cot 3y ago
  > They should be enforcing the law as written. Anything else... Ah - you live in one of those towns that writes tickets for driving 1 MPH over the speed limit, or jaywalking across an empty street, or having a burned out brake light, or ... correct?
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    should not are As for officer discretion, I'd prefer they had less. But even still, there's a pretty massive difference between mindlessly speeding by a small margin (which isn't even a criminal offense in the US) and doing something that explicitly illegal and impossible to do without forethought (spotlight deer).
- samatman 3y ago
  They aren't omnipresent and can't literally enforce every clause of every law under their jurisdiction. That gives them some latitude in what they do with their 40 hours and overtime. I would say using that time on a guy who is doing something which might not be illegal in a couple months is a dickish use of that discretion. Their hands aren't tied here.

Vicinity9635 3y ago

[dead]