Virginia hunter gets single day in prison for killing 20 juvenile bald eagles and hawks in poisoning scheme: authorities
A Virginia hunter got a slap on the wrist for poisoning over 20 young hawks and bald eagles during migration season to stop them from preying on ducks, which he wanted to kill for sport, according to authorities.
William Custis Smith was sentenced to one day in prison and received a $9,800 fine for killing 20 'juvenile' red-shouldered hawks and bald eagles in 2023, which he claimed were 'encroaching' on his duck hunting impoundment, according to court documents.
4 The corpse of the juvenile bald eagle, which was poisoned with an insecticide by hunter William Smith.
U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Virginia
'He's a big duck hunter, and he was in the process of trying to really get it going [and attracting ducks],' Virginia Conservation Police Master Officer Brian Bratton said of Smith in a statement.
'He was killing the hawks and eagles because they were killing all the ducks he was attracting to his impoundment. It was the time of year when the hawks are migrating through,' Bratton said, adding, 'He was very aware it was illegal.'
Smith baited the migrating raptors with rotting fish heads he had poisoned with the insecticide carbofuran and set up pole traps — which are designed to ensnare birds' legs, according to the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources.
4 An illegal pole trap on Smith's property ensnared the young raptors who were attracted to perch on the raised platform.
U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Virginia
Investigators found a 'fresh carcass of a juvenile bald eagle' on the bird killer's Delmarva peninsula property and seized it as evidence shortly after opening their investigation, which was spawned from an anonymous tip, according to court documents.
Agents installed a 'plot watcher camera' near the illegal pole trap and documented several birds being killed, including one that struggled for over seven hours before Smith beat it to death with a pole, court documents stated.
A necropsy report on the bald eagle revealed the presence of carbofuran, an insecticide that was banned in 2008 because of its toxicity to humans, according to the documents.
'This particular poison acts so quickly that nine times out of 10, when an eagle, hawk or whatever eats something, it acts so quickly that they die with whatever they're eating still in their claws,' Bratton said.
4 Investigators found dead fish heads that Smith had poisoned and laid out for bait.
U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Virginia
Smith admitted to investigators to 'killing in excess of 20 juvenile and mature bald eagles and hawks, primarily red-shouldered and red-tailed,' and handed over his batch of poison to authorities, according to the VDWR statement.
A single, first offense violation of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act — which outlaws killing the birds among other offenses — can carry with it a fine of $100,000 and imprisonment for up to one year, according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
A second violation is considered a felony and results in even steeper penalties.
4 The birds were killed during migration season in an area flush with nature preserves.
Jane Scott Norris via Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources
Smith was charged in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and pleaded guilty to five misdemeanor charges of Unlawful Taking of a Bald Eagle, Unlawful Taking of a Migratory Bird, and Unlawful Use of a Pesticide, according to court documents.
As part of the plea deal, he was ordered to pay $9,800 in restitution, serve 24 months' probation, 50 hours of community service, and spend one day in jail, according to the VDWR.
Smith's hometown of Hallwood, Virginia is near several protected areas including Saxis Wildlife Management Area, Mutton Hunk Fen Natural Area Preserve, Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, and Wallps Island National Wildlife Refuge.
US Fish and Wildlife did not respond to The Post's request for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A Teen Killed Himself After Talking to a Chatbot. His Mom's Lawsuit Could Cripple the AI Industry.
The Orlando Division of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida will hear allegations against Character Technologies, the creator of in the wrongful death lawsuit Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc. If the case is not first settled between the parties, Judge Anne Conway's ruling will set a major precedent for First Amendment protections afforded to artificial intelligence and the liability of AI companies for damages their models may cause. The case was brought against the company by Megan Garcia, the mother of 14-year-old Sewell Setzer III, who killed himself after conversing with a chatbot roleplaying as Daenerys and Rhaenyra Targaryen from the Game of Thrones franchise. Eugene Volokh, professor emeritus at UCLA School of Law, shares examples of Sewell's conversations included in the complaint against Character Technologies. Garcia's complaint alleges that Character Technologies negligently designed "as a sexualized product that would deceive minor customers and engage in explicit and abusive acts with them." The complaint also asserts that the company failed to warn the public "of the dangers arising from a foreseeable use of including specific dangers for children"; intentionally inflicted emotional distress on Sewell by "failing to implement adequate safety guardrails in the product before launching it into the marketplace"; and that the company's neglect proximately caused the death of Sewell who experienced "rapid mental health decline after he began using and with which he conversed "just moments before his death." Conway dismissed the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim on the grounds that "none of the allegations relating to Defendants' conduct rises to the type of outrageous conduct necessary to support" such a claim. However, Conway rejected the defendants' motions to dismiss the rest of Garcia's claims on First Amendment grounds, saying, "The Court is not prepared to hold that the Character A.I. [large language model] LLM's output is speech at this stage." Adam Zayed, founder and managing attorney of Zayed Law Offices, tells Reason he thinks "that there's a difference between the First Amendment arguments where a child is on social media or a child is on YouTube" and bypasses the age-verification measures to consume content "that's being produced by some other person" vs. minors accessing inappropriate chatbot outputs. However, Conway recognized Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) that the First Amendment "is written in terms of 'speech,' not speakers." Conway ruled that defendants "must convince the court that the Character A.I. LLM's output is protected speech" to invoke the First Amendment rights of third parties— users—whose access to the software would be restricted by a ruling in Garcia's favor. Conway says that Character Technologies "fail[ed] to articulate why words strung together by an LLM are speech." Whether LLM output is speech is an intractable philosophical question and a red herring; Conway herself invokes Davidson v. Time Inc. (1997) to assert that "the public…has the right to access social, aesthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences." Speech acts are broadly construed as "ideas and experiences" here—the word speech is not even used. So, the question isn't whether the AI output is speech per se, but whether it communicates ideas and experiences to users. In alleging that targeted her son with sexually explicit material, the plaintiff admits that the LLM communicated ideas, albeit inappropriate ones, to Sewell. Therefore, LLM output is expressive speech (in this case, it's obscene speech to express to a minor under the Florida Computer Pornography and Child Exploitation Prevention Act.) The opening paragraph of the complaint accuses Character Technologies of "launching their systems without adequate safety features, and with knowledge of potential dangers" to "gain a competitive foothold in the market." If the court establishes that the First Amendment does not protect LLM output and AI firms can be held liable for damages these models cause, only highly capitalized firms will be able to invest in the architecture required to shield themselves from such liability. Such a ruling would inadvertently erect a massive barrier to entry to the burgeoning American AI industry and protect incumbent firms from market competition, which would harm consumer welfare. Jane Bambauer, professor of law at the University of Florida, best explains the case in The Volokh Conspiracy: "It is a tragedy, and it would not have happened if had not existed. But that is not enough of a reason to saddle a promising industry with the duty to keep all people safe from their own expressive explorations." The post A Teen Killed Himself After Talking to a Chatbot. His Mom's Lawsuit Could Cripple the AI Industry. appeared first on
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court sides with Smith & Wesson, blocks Mexico's $10B suit against gunmakers over cartel violence
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a $10 billion lawsuit Mexico filed against top firearm manufacturers in the U.S. alleging the companies' business practices have fueled tremendous cartel violence and bloodshed. The unanimous ruling tossed out the case under U.S. laws that largely shield gunmakers from liability when their firearms are used in crime. Big-name manufacturers like Smith & Wesson — which still produces guns in Springfield, Massachusetts — had appealed to the justices after a lower court let the suit go forward under an exception for situations in which the companies themselves are accused of violating the law. But the justices found that Mexico hadn't made a plausible argument that the companies had knowingly allowed guns to be trafficked into the country. 'It does not pinpoint, as most aiding-and-abetting claims do, any specific criminal transactions that the defendants (allegedly) assisted,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the court's opinion. Mexico had asked the justices to let the case play out, saying it was still in its early stages. Asked about the case during her daily news briefing, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum pointed to another suit the country filed in 2022 against five gun shops and distributors in Arizona. 'There are two trials,' she said. 'We're going to see what the result is, and we'll let you know.' The case the Supreme Court tossed Thursday began in 2021, when the Mexican government filed a blockbuster suit against some of the biggest gun companies, including Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt and Glock. Smith & Wesson moved its headquarters and much of its operations from Springfield to Tennessee, but the company retains about 1,000 employees at its plant in Western Massachusetts. Operations that remain in Springfield include its forge, metal working, machining, finishing the assembly of Colt 1911-style handguns and revolver assembly. On Thursday, Mark Smith, Smith & Wesson president and CEO, said in a statement that the court's unanimous decision 'shutting down this ridiculous lawsuit' represented 'a big win for Smith & Wesson, but our industry, American sovereignty and, most importantly, every American who wishes to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights.' 'This suit, brought by Mexico in collaboration with U.S.-based anti-Second Amendment activist groups, was an affront to our nation's sovereignty and a direct attack on the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans,' Smith said in the statement. He called it the latest attack on the firearms industry 'in a blatant abuse of our legal system to advance their anti-constitutional agenda. 'To all American patriots — you can rest assured that Smith & Wesson will always stand and fight for your constitutional rights at every turn,' Smith said. Mexico has strict gun laws and has just one store where people can legally buy firearms. But thousands of guns are smuggled in by the country's powerful drug cartels every year. The Mexican government says at least 70% of those weapons come from the United States. The lawsuit claims that companies knew weapons were being sold to traffickers who smuggled them into Mexico and decided to cash in on that market. The companies reject Mexico's allegations, arguing the country's lawsuit comes nowhere close to showing they're responsible for a relatively few people using their products to commit violence. The trade group National Shooting Sports Foundation applauded the ruling, adding that gunmakers work with U.S. authorities to prevent gun trafficking. 'This is a tremendous victory for the firearm industry and the rule of law,' said Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel. A federal judge tossed out the lawsuit under a 2005 law that protects gun companies from most civil lawsuits, but an appeals court revived it. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston found it fell under an exception to the shield law for situations in which firearm companies are accused of knowingly breaking laws in their business practices. That exception has come up in other cases, including in lawsuits stemming from mass shootings. Families of victims of the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, for example, argued it applied to their lawsuit because the gunmaker had violated state law in the marketing of the AR-15 rifle used in the shooting, in which 20 first graders and six educators were killed. The families eventually secured a landmark $73 million settlement with Remington, the maker of the rifle. The Supreme Court's ruling doesn't appear to affect similar cases, said David Pucino, legal director at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. 'All survivors, in the United States, in Mexico, and anywhere else, deserve their day in court, and we will continue to support them in their fight for justice,' he said. Read the original article on MassLive.
Vox
an hour ago
- Vox
Why the Supreme Court just handed a big victory to gun manufacturers
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. Weapons seized from members of the gang Los Zetas are displayed by police during a presentation to the press, in Mexico City. Luis Acosta/AFP via Getty Images The Supreme Court handed down a unanimous opinion on Thursday that shuts down a lawsuit brought by the nation of Mexico against US gun companies. In Smith & Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Mexico sued seven American gun manufacturers, claiming that their products are often sold to gun traffickers who then provide these guns to Mexican drug cartels. The Mexican government claims that up to 90 percent of guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico come from the United States. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Unfortunately for Mexico, however, a 2005 law known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) gives American gunmakers broad immunity from lawsuits seeking to hold them liable for harms 'caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals.' PLCAA does contain some exemptions to this general rule. As Justice Elena Kagan explains in the Court's Smith & Wesson opinion, a gunmaker can be held liable for 'aiding and abetting someone else's firearms offense.' Mexico claims that the gunmakers aided and abetted illegal sales to cartels by 'supply[ing] firearms to retail dealers whom they know illegally sell to Mexican gun traffickers.' Mexico also faults the companies for allowing bulk sales of guns, which can enable illegal sales, and for practices such as designing guns that appeal to Mexican culture. One such gun, for example, features an image of the Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata, along with a quote from Zapata: 'It is better to die standing than to live on your knees.' But Kagan's opinion concludes that the mere fact that US gun companies likely knew that some of their guns were being resold in the illegal market, much less that some of their guns are designed to appeal to Mexicans, is not enough to overcome PLCAA. As Kagan explains, this conclusion largely flows from the Court's fairly recent decision in Twitter v. Taamneh (2023). Twitter concerned an attack by the terrorist group ISIS that killed 39 people at a nightclub in Istanbul, including a man with American relatives. Those relatives sued several social media companies in US court, claiming that the companies aided and abetted the Istanbul attack by allowing ISIS to post content which promotes ISIS's ideology and that attempts to recruit people to the terrorist organization's cause. But Twitter warned against a legal regime where 'ordinary merchants could become liable for any misuse of their goods and services, no matter how attenuated their relationship with the wrongdoer.' As a general rule, someone who provides a good or service to all comers is not legally responsible if a bad actor uses their product for a wicked purpose. If Ford sells a truck to a man who intentionally uses it to run over and kill his wife, Ford normally will not be responsible for this homicide. And so Kagan concludes that it's not enough for Mexico to show that gunmakers could have taken additional steps to prevent their products from winding up in the hands of drug cartels. Instead, 'the merchant becomes liable only if, beyond providing the good on the open market, he takes steps to 'promote' the resulting crime and 'make it his own.'' Of course, one thing that distinguishes Smith & Wesson from Twitter is that social media platforms are not weapons whose entire purpose is to injure people. If PLCAA did not exist, Mexico might have argued that the gun companies' decision to make and sell an inherently dangerous product should make them liable for the consequences of selling such a product.
