If you simply read the facts on this particular case, from the background, to the act, the number of elk shot (some not found/recovered), getting caught, bragging on social media, the lies that were told along the way, etc, up until now and this ruling, it is very difficult for me to feel like justice was served. He was a game warden, he knew the rules, he knew where he was. There is zero chance in my opinion that he alone, out of the three total in his hunting party, knew he was acting under treaty rights, while the other two admitted to poaching. Some may point to the justice of treaty rights in this ruling, but if I stand back and take a deep breath it doesn't pass my smell test. It feels more like a drunk driver getting off on a technicality.
I find too often "we" don't take the time to step back to assess the big picture, but spend all out time on a bread crumb trail of minutia to finally look up and like where we've ended up.
