Being aware of the risks inherent in certain attitudes and aware of the consequences that derive from one's actions is quite useful to avoid getting into even serious problems. Today we are talking about threats and violence against a public official.
The public officer
To begin with, it is important to ask who the Public Official is. Article 357 of the Criminal Code is clear in this regard: Public Official is whoever exercises a legislative, judicial or administrative public function. The integration of law 181/92 specifies the position by recalling that the Public Official gives rise to the manifestation of the will of the Public Administration which can be carried out by means of authoritative or certification powers.
The hunting surveillance officer it is therefore, without a shadow of a doubt, a Public Official, who acts on behalf of the entity he represents; when he draws up a report ascertaining a violation he is undoubtedly giving manifestation of his authoritative power and carrying out his function as the right hand man of the Public Administration.
Violence and threats to public officials
To give a clear definition of this crime is the law 336 of the Criminal Code. The law is quite exhaustive and establishes that anyone who uses violence or threatens a public official to force him to do an act contrary to his duties, or to omit an act of office or service, is punished with imprisonment from six months to five years. .
Everything seems quite clear, but in the reality of things, situations are not always clear: what is important to know is what we mean by threat and violence. The purpose of the violence and the threat is to force the Public Official to do an act contrary to his duties, then place him in a state of fear or coercion such as to induce him not to draw up a report. All actions aimed at creating this kind of situation are considered a crime, the others are not. Let's take a practical example: trying to steal the bill from the Public Official to prevent them from drawing up the report, tugging at it, maybe throwing it to the ground is certainly a crime. Threatening him in his person and his property is a crime.
On the other hand, the challenge of the hunter who shows the will to contact his lawyer does not appear to be a threat or violence. According to the law, contacting a lawyer to have one's rights protected is not to be understood as a threat, but is simply a manifestation of the hunter's disappointment, completely legitimate.
In recent years, some rulings of the Court of Cassation have removed any doubts regarding a rather controversial situation: to confirm the hunting exercise in progress it is not necessary to actually kill wildlife, but it is sufficient that the concrete circumstances demonstrate that the hunter was actually preparing to hunt.
Once again a practical example can help us. The hunter who enters an area where hunting with hunting dogs, ammunition, signal guns and so on is prohibited, if stopped by a Public Official, may be the subject of a report without actually hunting any head of game. The circumstances, on the other hand, leave no doubt that the intent is to kill wildlife in an inappropriate place. Arguing in that case would make no sense.
Resistance to a public official
Here is another crime that is frequently committed without really knowing the consequences. In article 337 the Criminal Code provides that anyone who uses violence or threats to oppose a Public Official who is performing an official act or service is punished with imprisonment from six months to five years. But we will talk more about this aspect in the next articles.