ok, well then I GIFT him the meat, and then he pays me for my gas.........that way he's not paying me for 'meat', is there anything that's illegal that says a person can't pay for gas????? oh please, let me know if there is.....I'd just love to know.......

Nah Potato, meat for gas, or exchanging one commodity for another is considered bartering. Bartering is illegal... Good try though!

Well ummmm lets see...I am sure I made it clear that I referenced the article in which you made the comment on and never said anything about where you were from......reading comprehension...learn it. Damn dude dunno why you getting your panties all in a wad.

As bitmasher said I was just offering friendly advise and meant no offense.

With that said.. it took all of 10 mins of research to come up with exactly what bitmasher has stated with this addition....
20.1-05-02. Big game animals protected. No person may hunt, harass, chase, pursue,
take, attempt to take, possess, transport, ship, convey by common or private carrier, sell, barter,
or exchange any big game animal except as provided in this title.

So by your own admission you have broken the law. So there Law breaker, Law breaker you are a Law breaker!!!

Also found the answer to another one of your post......
Any person may enter upon legally posted land (without a weapon) to recover game shot or killed on land where he/she had a lawful right to hunt.

I suppose you'll bash me for that also.

So in closing, I been on this forum quite awhile and I like the folks here as most are law abiding hunters so i think I'll just stay here, I really didn't have a bad day....fantastic day would best describe my day. Sounds as if mabe yours sucked just a lil bit. Dont fret, tomorrow is a whole nother day!!

Whoa, what an exchange, reminds me of my days on the flying lead forum...

All I can add is that out here in Washington and Oregon, you cannot enter someone else's property to retireve a big game animal you shot somewhere else without the landowner's permission, whether it is posted no trespassing or not. If it is posted to allow hunting by the gen public it is okay, but not otherwise. Out here entering another person's property without their permission is illegal trespass, and you cannot break one law to satisfy another (wasting big game is considered poaching out here).

To do this properly, you must try and contact the landowner. If you cannot, or if the landowner refuses entry, then you have to contact LE and have them ask the landowner. If he refuses entry then, he must tag the animal himself or he will be charged with poaching and you are off the hook. If LE cannot make contact with absent landowner, then they can enter property and retrieve animal for you. It is a mess, but landowner's rights have to be preserved as best as possible.

Back to the thread topic, this Hmong dude needs to be made an example of.

It'll be tough to make an example out of such an extreme case...

I don't think educators will really need to tell the next generation of hunters that it's wrong to use a SKS or any other rifle for a mass killing spree, but if you happen to run amuck, as an example, you might turn out like that 36 year old US Citizen which served in the Army and resides in Minnesota, named: Chai Vang...

Although, Mr. Vang is the perfect example, if convicted, of a prime candidate for capital punishment!

It's just too bad, Wisconsin law has been without the death penalty for over 150 years, so the "Best" case scenario if Chai Vang is convicted for all 6 murders is 6 counts of life in prison without conjugal visits.

Wisconsin's Death Penalty

Well, maybe not voluntary conjugal visits anyways.

If it had been in this area, he would not have made it to trial.

Well Benjammin, a person could take your statement a couple of ways. One is that you agree with vigilantism, a process that is cathartic, but illegal. The other is that you are saying that in your neck of the woods this would never happen because the folks in yor area can "take care of themselves". Well I was born and raised less than two hours from the incident and still hunt about an hour north of there; and the first thing I thought of was how does this happen when the victims should have been able to protect themselves. I know I don't go in the woods during hunting season without my weapon. Only because I don't want to miss a shot at some meat, not because I worry about maniacs in the woods. My point is that no matter where this happened it doesn't make sense that only one person was armed (other than the perp). I don't want to pick a fight here, the statement just kind of irked me. The whole thing just sucks!

Vigilantism is/was necessary in this situation. Any time an individual or group is fired upon with the intent to harm, maim, or kill that should be justification enough to fight back. Once the nut job starts shooting or vice versa it's little hard to call time out and request permission to dial 911.

Off topic, How does vigilantism have anything do with purging a turd or laxatives? I'm confused....

...because you're doing away with the $hit of society.

Your confusing self-defense and vigilatism. Yes, it would have been better if someone at the scene would have been able to fight back, but that is not vigilantism.

By the way the use of the word cathartic was meant for "emotional relief", not the use of bodily functions