# 3 charged in shark dragging



## topnative2 (Feb 22, 2009)

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/12/3-florida-men-charged-in-shark-dragging-video.html


----------



## yobata (Jul 14, 2015)

Idiots. Prob trying to get "likes"


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

That guy has a history of pulling stunts like that.


----------



## Eric1488 (Nov 2, 2017)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> That guy has a history of pulling stunts like that.


Indeed!! I have been shown/seen other videos of similar acts. Am glad to see the FWC has apprehended the culprits and if I'm not mistaken at some point the self proclaimed #FWCSMOSTWANTED


----------



## SomaliPirate (Feb 5, 2016)

Get those bastards.


----------



## LowHydrogen (Dec 31, 2015)

There should be a legal mechanism to remove fishing/hunting privileges for life.


----------



## LowHydrogen (Dec 31, 2015)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> That guy has a history of pulling stunts like that.


Hopefully he'll develop a history of having to hold another dudes shirt tail LMAO.


----------



## Cam (Apr 5, 2017)

Sport fishing lives in a gray area but this is simple cruelty. How a person treats an animal is a good indicator of how they will treat others when nobody is watching.


----------



## CurtisWright (May 9, 2012)

Yes.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

LowHydrogen said:


> Hopefully he'll develop a history of having to hold another dudes shirt tail LMAO.


Hopefully he will be holding the inside of Tyrone’s pocket


----------



## LowHydrogen (Dec 31, 2015)

Exactly


----------



## fishicaltherapist (Mar 9, 2013)

If they were expecting likes..... those punks are going to find out that they are now "fishes" and the "cell sharks" are most certainly going to LIKE them. Welcome to the "Crossbar Hotel" boys !!!!!!


----------



## topnative2 (Feb 22, 2009)

https://www.foxnews.com/us/man-dragged-shark-viral-video-sentenced-10-days-jail


----------



## firecat1981 (Nov 27, 2007)

What about the main perpetrator?


----------



## Steve_Mevers (Feb 8, 2013)

topnative2 said:


> https://www.foxnews.com/us/man-dragged-shark-viral-video-sentenced-10-days-jail


My old investigations unit worked this case, they did a good job putting this case together, it was a difficult case to prove.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

Ten days in jail? That’s it?


----------



## topnative2 (Feb 22, 2009)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Ten days in jail? That’s it?


that is a lot of time...."it's only a fish case"


----------



## formerWAflyfisher (Sep 5, 2008)

Unfortunately it is only a fish case. Only way he’d get more time is if he did it to a dog or cat. But hopefully 10 days in jail will leave an impression to at least to not do this kind $h!T..... Most likely though he’ll just not video tape and post on social media.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

Ten years in prison and people still murder...


----------



## EdK13 (Oct 3, 2013)

Raise ya!! 13 fiddy.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

Steve_Mevers said:


> My old investigations unit worked this case, they did a good job putting this case together, it was a difficult case to prove.


Help me understand how it was easy to disprove a video the men took and posted online?

Seems like a slam dunk if there ever was one. Where I think it fell apart was the plea deal for 10 days. That is a horseshit move.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

DuckNut said:


> Help me understand how it was easy to disprove a video the men took and posted online?
> 
> Seems like a slam dunk if there ever was one. Where I think it fell apart was the plea deal for 10 days. That is a horseshit move.


Exactly. I’ve seen guys post photos of oversized redfish bragging about not tagging them on Facebook and have wardens at their door the next day writing tickets. 
This shark dragger has a history of violations. What was so hard to prove?


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Exactly. I’ve seen guys post photos of oversized redfish bragging about not tagging them on Facebook and have wardens at their door the next day writing tickets.
> This shark dragger has a history of violations. What was so hard to prove?


From the article - 
Following the incident, other videos began to surface involving the men. One showed Wenzel shooting a shark with a .38-caliber revolver and another showed the men pouring alcohol down the throats of fish that were alive, the Tampa Bay Times reported.

What's next, chicken sacrifice live on facebook?

Is FWC a big of failure as the rest and why would they offer a plea? Where are the charges to the other two videos they know about?

Just keep this article on your boat so the next time you get stopped you have precedence for filling your cooler.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

DuckNut said:


> Read that article - it says they filmed another video shooting sharks with a gun and posting that one.
> 
> What's next, chicken sacrifice live on facebook?
> 
> Is FWC a big of failure as the rest?


I recall when it happened and the guy had a lot more violations in the past too if I remember correctly.


----------



## Guest (Sep 24, 2019)

All who ya know, I am willing to bet he knew somebody!


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

Here is another take on the story. This one is much more pathetic. 

He is a commercial fishing captain - I am sure he follows the regs.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/publi...ets-10-days-jail-for-animal-cruelty-20190228/


----------



## State fish rob (Jan 25, 2017)

Half the country voted for Hillary , ie: half the country are idiots ,glad my half are deplorable !
Only thing surprising to me is that it was recorded
Why pick on a fish ? Is it meanness ? Lack of education ? Or because they can ?


----------



## Steve_Mevers (Feb 8, 2013)

First, they had to prove the shark was alive when it was being dragged, the cruelty to animal statue does not apply to actions taken against a dead animal, that was not an easy fact to prove but they did. Facebook photos are great but you can’t just charge someone who posts a pic of an oversized fish, you have to be able to prove a lot facts about the photo before it can entered into evidence in a court. And most importantly, the FWC did a good job investigating and documenting the violation which resulted in an arrest warrant for those involved. From that point forward it is totally in the prosecutors hands on what the outcome of the case will be, they are the ones that often buckle and offer weak plea deals because they don’t want to go to trial. If you have a beef with the sentence, direct your anger at the prosecutors, they are the ones that offered the plea deal rather than taking it to trial.


----------



## hipshot (Sep 29, 2018)

I have no inside info on this case, but I do have some input. First, anyone who relies on media for their facts is a fool. All too often the media is selective about what information it publishes, to push agendas. Second, the media often doesn't have the entire story; LE isn't going to release information to the media that is critical to an investigation, not yet proven, or may be sensitive for one reason or another. Then, as Steve Mevers pointed out, when the investigation is concluded and the prosecutors have it, all bets are off. 

There was a case in the Panama City area a few years ago where undercover FWC agents observed a guide tying the beaks of pelicans shut and releasing them because they were bothering his clients. The FWC turned it over to the courts and it was dismissed. It wasn't FWC's doing; the magistrate did that. 

I have had numerous cases dismissed when I provided slamdunk evidence. In one boating accident I worked two drunks got in a boat at a waterfront lounge and took off at full throttle late at night. They drove through an anchored cabin cruiser -- yep, entered the starboard side and drove out the port side (the three people in the offender's vessel and the two in the victim's vessel were all married, but none of them to each other. They ALL ended up divorced over it). The cabin cruiser had full navigation lights on, not just an anchor light. Witnesses at the dock stated that the operator of the offender's 19' outboard runabout poured the unconscious owner into the forward passenger's (portside) seat and sat down at the (starboard) helm, with their eager young female passenger seated aft. They then left the waterfront bar at full throttle. In my investigation I found that the owner (who remembered nothing) had sustained bruises and abrasions, and lost several teeth in the collision. Those teeth were subsequently found embedded in the vessel's dash on the port (passenger) side. Note that the windshield was intact on that side. The operator (who also recalled nothing) went through the windshield in the collision. He received bazillions of lacerations from the broken glass. He also lost his eyesight. His clothing (recovered at the hospital) was full of broken glass. Note that the helm (starboard) windshield was shattered and gone.

Both vessels were recovered (the cruiser sank) and impounded, the investigation conducted, bloodwork subpoenaed, a lengthy report with more than ample photographic evidence written, and the DA's Office got the case. Dismissed. Why? The prosecutor told me that the operator's attorney maintained that the front seaters criscrossed during the collision, with the operator crossing to port and the unconscious passenger crossing to starboard -- miraculously, without colliding with each other, and -- again miraculously, sustaining injuries completely inconsistent with the damage to their vessel. I thought he was joking, but he was dead serious. I asked why he would even entertain such a preposterous claim, and he replied that they were not going to argue that in court. Wow!

We've gotten a new DA since then, but we still see perfectly good cases dismissed, and all we can do is move on. But that's the REAL WORLD justice system. And remember, most of the major players are elected, not appointed.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

The sad thing is animals have more protection than human babies.


----------



## GaG8tor (Jul 8, 2019)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> The sad thing is animals have more protection than human babies.


Disgusting


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

so if I am reading this correctly that if I wish to perform some acts that would be considered cruel on a cat, all I have to do is make sure it is dead before I start my video camera and I am in the clear?


----------



## hipshot (Sep 29, 2018)

DuckNut said:


> so if I am reading this correctly that if I wish to perform some acts that would be considered cruel on a cat, all I have to do is make sure it is dead before I start my video camera and I am in the clear?


Desecration of a corpse?


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

hipshot said:


> Desecration of a corpse?


Not according to the post above.


----------



## Drifter (Dec 13, 2018)

In Montana basically every story like this ends in the persons fishing and hunting privileges revoked for life. Ive seen it quite a few times. Ten days is probably enough along with a fine. Hefty fine. These guys sound like creeps.


----------



## DuckNut (Apr 3, 2009)

Drifter said:


> In Montana basically every story like this ends in the persons fishing and hunting privileges revoked for life. Ive seen it quite a few times. Ten days is probably enough along with a fine. Hefty fine. These guys sound like creeps.


In MI a hunter shot a moose and then tried to claim it was a really big deer. He got fined $2,500 and had to pay $35,000 restitution and lost hunting privileges for 10 years or until all fines paid.

I can't tell you how many times I saw a tow truck hauling truck and boat away after owner got caught with illegal fish.

This was a total failure.


----------

