Comments on: Mason County Elk Hunters Held at Gunpoint

By: BlueLight

BlueLight — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:41:47 +0000

Josh, can you provide a REAL update to the story? I’ll take Mr. Jones’ spin with salt (not that that makes it more palatable).

By: C. Jones

C. Jones — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:00:59 +0000

The Officers involved were not Tribal Police Officers. They were Tribal Natural Resources Officers within their jurisdiction (Usual and Accustomed hunting areas). Read case law and you will see they had every right to contact the hunters. Were they excessive in pointing a gun at them? No. How are Law Enforcement to know what type of gun is used. Was it unfortunate that a two year old was involved? Yes. Tribal Officers receive the same training as any other Law Enforcement Officer in this state.

By: josh farley

josh farley — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:15:09 +0000

Yes, I will, BlueLight. But if you hear anything first, be sure to let me know.

-Josh

By: BlueLight

BlueLight — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:21:31 +0000

Can you keep us updated on this?

By: PoulsboPicini

PoulsboPicini — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 01:02:06 +0000

Tribal Police? Is that an oxymoron like “jumbo Shrimp” “Military Intelligence” and “Bad Sex”. Sounds like the Tribe might be givin up some bingo money in the near future.

By: rockyboy

rockyboy — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:42:26 +0000

NONYA,

They are tribal Police from Port Gamble In Brinnon (huh)? with AK-47′s wow ! when your so called Law enforcment showed up their guns were put away and the elk was in the back of the truck and one of the hunters was a child.

Maybe they should stay on the reservation where they belong and leave the real Law enforcment to do their job.

By: NONYA

NONYA — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:18:12 +0000

Jon8mup,

Its comments and opinions like yours that perpetuate the neccessity of Law Enforcement Officers (regardless of jurisdiction) to draw their weapons when dealing with people who are armed.

Contacting anyone who is presently holding a firearm is inherently dangerous and I am sure that the officers were simply ensuring that they would be able to go home safe at the end of the day.

If the “Hunters” had been criminals with guns, there would be no dispute on the legitimacy of the officers unholstering their weapons. Unfortunately there is no way of knowing that fact (just like you pointed out “How were these two hunters to know if these idiot police wannabes were legit?”) until they can verify their information. They were playing it safe, just as I am sure that you would if you were in the same situation.

Washington state law (as well as Federal) requires any citizen to comply with a public official (Law Enforcement) when they are in the process of determining if a law has been broken. In this case it took a few hours due partly to the fact of the location I am sure. The Law Enforcement Officers did nothing wrong.

If the hunters doubted the validty of the officers identity and subsequent authority they could have requested identification. Even if they were not satisfied with that they could have requested to call dispatch and verify on the spot. I dont know a single officer that would refuse that request, given the situation was under control.

By: Jon8mup

Jon8mup — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:01:01 +0000

This is why I go hunting with a .40 S&W as a sidearm. I would have had no problem shooting and killing both “officers” if they had drawn a weapon on me. How were these two hunters to know if these idiot police wannabes were legit?

The tribe was most definitely in the wrong here and deserves to be sued for A LOT of money.

By: BlueLight

BlueLight — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:33:17 +0000

Can the wronged parties sue the tribe?
Could they sue the tribe even if the tribal members had killed one of them?