DNR/police looking for another black eye

Quote:

---

Lets all take the side of the tree hugger

---

I’m taking the side of the person not using force. This is ethics 101 that any 5 year old could tell you right from wrong. Don’t use force and violence against those who haven’t used force and violence against you. If the owner or an employee would have put up any kind of a stink about the armed thugs raiding their property someone could have easily gotten injured or killed. I have no idea why we put up with this level of violence from our supposed “protectors”. The sheriff and DNR offices need to be turned upside down and shaken hard from the top on down.

How did they take the fawn by force, much less use violence? They confiscated it. Even reading this biased account you can’t say force or violence was used. Thanks for pushing me further onto the side of the DNR and police.

Quote:

---

How did they take the fawn by force, much less use violence? They confiscated it. Even reading this biased account you can’t say force or violence was used. Thanks for pushing me further onto the side of the DNR and police.

---

Violence is the intentional use of physical force threatened or actual, against another person. The owner of the property clearly did not invite the armed men onto his property and offer to have them take and kill the fawn voluntarily. You’ve been trained your whole life to not see government as the violent entity that it is. It in fact has a monopoly on the use of overwhelming violence with little or no responsibility or repercussions if things go south. Everything it does requires the use of force and violence.

Quote:

---

Violence is the intentional use of physical force threatened or actual, against another person. The owner of the property clearly did not invite the armed men onto his property and offer to have them take and kill the fawn voluntarily. You’ve been trained your whole life to not see government as the violent entity that it is. It in fact has a monopoly on the use of overwhelming violence with little or no responsibility or repercussions if things go south. Everything it does requires the use of force and violence.

---

If you believe that, I have a shack in the woods I’d like to sell you. I’ll throw in the tinfoil hat for free. The parchment for your manifesto is extra though.

Quote:

---

If you believe that, I have a shack in the woods I’d like to sell you. I’ll throw in the tinfoil hat for free. The parchment for your manifesto is extra though.

---

Have any reasoned response to the fact that force and violence was used in the raid on the property or would you like to settle with calling me crazy and moving on?

Quote:

---

Have any reasoned response to the fact that force and violence was used in the raid on the property or would you like to settle with calling me crazy and moving on?

---

You are basing fact on your loose definitions of the terms force and violence? By your definition everything everybody does requires force and violence.

Quote:

---

You’ve been trained your whole life to not see government as the violent entity that it is.

---

I’ve been trained have I? Your passive aggressive arrogance is annoying. How you like that alliteration?

Or perhaps a ticket for two ducks over in ND in ’08?

“(There were) nine DNR agents and four deputy sheriffs, and they were all armed”

That’s 13 armed officers (using my old calculator) to take care of an overly simple situation. And I think it obvious an animal shelter is not going to bushwhack someone coming up the drive.

I know where a guy is growing a garden on park property in Woodbury. Maybe we can send in the National Guard to take care of that situation?

Quote:

---

“(There were) nine DNR agents and four deputy sheriffs, and they were all armed”

That’s 13 armed officers (using my old calculator) to take care of an overly simple situation. And I think it obvious an animal shelter is not going to bushwhack someone coming up the drive.

I know where a guy is growing a garden on park property in Woodbury. Maybe we can send in the National Guard to take care of that situation?

---

Ok, maybe that is a little overkill.

Isn’t “armed officers” a bit redundant? I mean, they wear side arms all the time.

aww.. too late Giggles is dead

Quote:

---

You are basing fact on your loose definitions of the terms force and violence? By your definition everything everybody does requires force and violence.

---

I’ll give you that the term violence is usually associated with physical contact. I would argue that if a thief steals your money at gunpoint, that is still a violent act even if there is no physical contact. If the victim decides to defend themselves likely they will be injured or killed. If you don’t consider armed theft a violent act then I would concede that violence wasn’t used in this case based on your definition of violence.

Force however is clear cut. There can be no question that the property owner didn’t invite the armed men onto his property and offer up the fawn voluntarily to be killed. The property owner was clearly forced to do so with the threat of overwhelming physical violence if he were to resist.

Quote:

---

I’ve been trained have I? Your passive aggressive arrogance is annoying. How you like that alliteration?

---

I have been trained in the same way. It’s embarrassing for me to admit it. I feel i’ve been a fool for not recognizing that I apply one set morals to the government and a completely different set of morals to everyone else. i.e don’t use force against those who haven’t used force against you.

So, do you believe in following the laws of our country and states? These poor souls were breaking the law in WI. A search warrant was issued by a judge given enough evidence they were doing something illegal. While the number of resources appears questionable, they followed the law to the letter. Also, do you expect the DNR and law enforcement officers to go unarmed? I don’t know why, but it seems obvious to me if 13 officers were dispatched over a stupid fawn deer, there is more to this story than meets the eye. But then I again, I don’t believe the government is out to get me at every turn. I feel bad for you if that is your view of some of the most courageous folks in our great country.

Quote:

---

Force however is clear cut. There can be no question that the property owner didn’t invite the armed men onto his property and offer up the fawn voluntarily to be killed. The property owner was clearly forced to do so with the threat of overwhelming physical violence if he were to resist.

---

When you have a dozen officers show up, it is definitely intimidating, especially when it is over a fawn being kept without a permit.

Technically, in order to seize the fawn they would have to use force. In order for officers or COs to enforce any laws it requires force or perceived force. In this case the person was breaking the law, knowingly or not, frivelous law or not.

If I put myself in this guys shoes, I would be very upset. But I would ultimately accept it because I would know that you can’t just keep wild animals. Not to mention, I’d really be happy I wasn’t fined and wouldn’t threaten to go to court. But I wouldn’t be very happy with a show of force by having more officers than needed to remedy the situation.

Quote:

---

So, do you believe in following the laws of our country and states? These poor souls were breaking the law in WI. A search warrant was issued by a judge given enough evidence they were doing something illegal. While the number of resources appears questionable, they followed the law to the letter. Also, do you expect the DNR and law enforcement officers to go unarmed? I don’t know why, but it seems obvious to me if 13 officers were dispatched over a stupid fawn deer, there is more to this story than meets the eye. But then I again, I don’t believe the government is out to get me at every turn. I feel bad for you if that is your view of some of the most courageous folks in our great country.

---

I believe there are individuals and how we treat each other. I don’t believe in initiating force. I believe in voluntary interactions. I don’t believe in violence unless faced with violence in which case tear off their heads and [censored] down their necks. I hope feeling bad for me doesn’t put you off your feed.

can they really call it a no kill shelter anymore?

technically it was only tranquilized at the shelter

Behold the face of evil

OK this is gone off track too far… I shoot 2 to 3 of these every fall and they land on my plate. Nobody said the deer was evil, what was “evil” if that is what you want to call it, is the shelter keeping a wild animal, against regulations designed to protect the exact animal that they were keeping…. Might sound cruel, but to euthanize one animal to save 10, is a sound practice. Now back to the story, yes 12 public employees to seize one fawn = excessive… but then again, what else might they have been doing instead, harassing anglers on the water ???

Quote:

---

technically it was only tranquilized at the shelter

---

wink wink

Isn’t living in a police state wonderful?

Keep Giggles in mind the next time you’re caught with your drain plug in or a random weed stuck between your boat and bunk trailer. After all, the burden of proof is on you to provide sufficient evidence that your minnows aren’t swimming in lake water even though it’s 7am and you just left the bait shop.

Just remember how great this state is and how they are attempting to protect our resources when a DNR-issued .40 is pressed against your temple and red dots are focused on your CNS on the side of the road on a picture perfect Saturday on the way to, or from, your favorite lake while your family is in the truck.

That would never happen here? I’m sure the keeper of Giggles didn’t think so either.

Hey, I hate the new invasive BS as much or more than anyone. That said, I also hate 55mph highways in Mn. I rarely drive 55, usually just over 60. So, if I get pulled over by a cop, it’s hardly anyone’s fault but my own for breaking the law. I’ve yet to be drawn down on. Simply be nice, accept your penance and move one.

The great part of this police state you live in. You can organize like minded individuals, get legislation introduced and push it through the process.

Aren’t warrants issued according to the degree of need as based on info provided by the party seeking the warrant? Some warrants are simple…some are “no-knock” and have the type of armed approach seen in this instance. For a fawn deer to be re-moved I can’t see the need for a small army, a simple warrant should have been plenty. If the people didn’t comply, bring in the boys. I’m guessing that the party[ies] holding that fawn had some history with the dnr/cops that led to this strong-arm approach. I wonder if warrant applications are public?

DNR’s web page is down. Reports of death threats. urine off hunters and and the gun crowd for decades and nothing happens. urine off Bambi lovers and they threaten to go for the throat. I can’t wait for the next CYA statement by DNR.

Quote:

---

It’s a knee jerk reaction to condemn the government for their actions here.

The story seems a bit one sided. There may have been a good reason to go in expecting the worse. Although it does appear out of line, I’ll hold off ripping them until more details are released.

---

agreed.
For those of you talking about cost waste of resources maybe but had there been an investigation and court hearings it would have cost a whole lot more and the private attorneys would have benefitted the most.