SaltyCajun.com

SaltyCajun.com (http://www.saltycajun.com/forum/index.php)
-   Hunting Discussion (http://www.saltycajun.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Hate hunting other peoples property (http://www.saltycajun.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49496)

duckfreak 11-19-2013 09:28 AM

Where
 
What parish did this take place in?

Finfeatherfur 11-19-2013 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DA COVE (Post 644630)
First off the only person that can file any complaint or charges would be the land owner. But when hunting someone else's property u should have written permission on ur person just for what u encountered.

Another internet lawyer!!!! - Geez, when are you guys going to think before you type!? So, if I'm at work and my neighbor calls 911 saying someone is on my property and they are not suppose to be there, then it's up to me to file a complaint and get LE out there........uh, no -that's not how it works. When a complaint is filed, they have a duty to respond.

And as far as the gun draw, I'm not going to arm chair quaterback the deputy. I wasn't there. Do we know what was told to him before you arrived back at the truck? Nope - he could have been told there has been signs of a meth lab on the property, at which time I probably would have drawn on you also. We don't have the other side the story here!!!

As far as the locked gate, I have had to remove people from homes that had a key to get in. Happens all the time. The gate/key is of no use to the man not knowing who has the right to be there.

Finfeatherfur 11-19-2013 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mako19 (Post 644607)
Sounds like they definitely overreacted by having guns drawn and POINTED at you.
Sorry you had a crappy afternoon.

Next time you see the guy that was trying to get the cops to arrest you he needs to hear a piece of your mind.

Feel free to walk in our shoes and see who overracts! I love how the deputy was called to the scene, but yet he is the bad guy here. He didn't just pick this piece of property to drive to, get out, and wait for TWO armed subjuects. He was called there and has TWO guys with guns. Yes, they were hunting, but how does he know that????

duckfreak 11-19-2013 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finfeatherfur (Post 644688)
Another internet lawyer!!!! - Geez, when are you guys going to think before you type!? So, if I'm at work and my neighbor calls 911 saying someone is on my property and they are not suppose to be there, then it's up to me to file a complaint and get LE out there........uh, no -that's not how it works. When a complaint is filed, they have a duty to respond.

And as far as the gun draw, I'm not going to arm chair quaterback the deputy. I wasn't there. Do we know what was told to him before you arrived back at the truck? Nope - he could have been told there has been signs of a meth lab on the property, at which time I probably would have drawn on you also. We don't have the other side the story here!!!

As far as the locked gate, I have had to remove people from homes that had a key to get in. Happens all the time. The gate/key is of no use to the man not knowing who has the right to be there.

i get what you are saying, but I think what are saying is that the property owner is the one who press charges if he chose to do so.

Finfeatherfur 11-19-2013 10:09 AM

Nope, this is not a civil case. It is called criminal tresspassing, and the owner is not needed to file charges. Now, you better dang well have it together otherwise the DA kicks it out (ie., the land owner should be contacted someway before filing).

Duck Butter 11-19-2013 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finfeatherfur (Post 644689)
Feel free to walk in our shoes and see who overracts! I love how the deputy was called to the scene, but yet he is the bad guy here. He didn't just pick this piece of property to drive to, get out, and wait for TWO armed subjuects. He was called there and has TWO guys with guns. Yes, they were hunting, but how does he know that????

4 points of view:

From sheriff's standpoint:
2 armed subjects + unknown vehicle + NIGHT time = I would be a little more 'edgy' in the sheriff's shoes. No written permission, they tried to call landowner and no answer, so they were just following procedure

From MarshRats standpoint:
Didn't really do anything wrong or at least anything he hasn't done in the past, the unknown vehicle is what prompted this. Probably should have had written permission OR if his buddy would have answered the phone 1st time it would have been cleared up quickly

From W's standpoint:
Doesn't matter, the weirs are open so don't care bout nothing else

From MathGeek's standpoint:
This is clearly a violation of Amendment X,Y,or Z and the sheriff's department should be sued and held accountable for harassment and badges should be taken away from them. They should be tarred and feathered publicly as this is clearly an example of DRACONIAN SANCTIONS!

:rotfl:

jopete 11-19-2013 10:35 AM

even though it was a unpleasent experiance, maybe now the neighbor will realize that he needs to not be so quick to call the po-po and will learn something from it.

good luck on the hunting season!!!!

Spunt Drag 11-19-2013 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 644695)
4 points of view:

From sheriff's standpoint:
2 armed subjects + unknown vehicle + NIGHT time = I would be a little more 'edgy' in the sheriff's shoes. No written permission, they tried to call landowner and no answer, so they were just following procedure

From MarshRats standpoint:
Didn't really do anything wrong or at least anything he hasn't done in the past the unknown vehicle is what prompted this. Probably should have had written permission OR if his buddy would have answered the phone 1st time it would have been cleared up quickly

From W's standpoint:
Doesn't matter, the weirs are open so don't care bout nothing else

From MathGeek's standpoint:
This is clearly a violation of Amendment X,Y,or Z and the sheriff's department should be sued and held accountable for harassment and badges should be taken away from them. They should be tarred and feathered publicly as this is clearly an example of DRACONIAN SANCTIONS!

:rotfl:

He didn't do anything wrong at all. Give me a break. This is nothing more than another case of over zealous law enforcement.

Duck Butter 11-19-2013 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spunt Drag (Post 644700)
He didn't do anything wrong at all. Give me a break. This is nothing more than another case of over zealous law enforcement.

Not taking the bait

Spunt Drag 11-19-2013 11:44 AM

It's not a case of "who's righter and who's wronger". The dude was 100% legal, just trying to enjoy an afternoon hunt, on property he had permission to be on. He was harassed, take the blinders off.

Duck Butter 11-19-2013 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spunt Drag (Post 644716)
It's not a case of "who's righter and who's wronger". The dude was 100% legal, just trying to enjoy an afternoon hunt, on property he had permission to be on. He was harassed, take the blinders off.

He didn't have any PROOF of permission to be hunting there. I am not taking sides, but I can clearly see both sides of the argument (i.e. no blinders). Think about it from the sheriff's side (i.e. no blinders), he gets a call there is a possible trespasser (two armed men don't forget), there is no proof they are to be on the property (no written proof, no verbal proof) for all the sheriff knows they ARE trespassers at that time.


Answer this - What was the sheriff supposed to do? Should he have just let them go? :shaking: (there is not one shred of evidence they are NOT trespassing remember:eek:)

It was a complicated situation and I would have been pizzed too if I got frisked but I bet you I would have written permission next time I went out there:grinpimp:

dammit, this thing is gonna go 20 pages!

MarshRat89 11-19-2013 01:37 PM

I don't Blame the deputy for being on guard when we first walked up armed. The frisking however was overboard. We were compliant from the start and answered all questions respectfully. The answers to all the questions he asked should have further proved our innocence. I can promise y'all I will have written permission from now on. How does any law enforcement officer know I just didn't write that out my self though? Does it have to be notarized with 3 witnesses or something?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

Finfeatherfur 11-19-2013 01:52 PM

All written permission does is identify land owner, usually has contact information, and a signature. Thus, it becomes a civil matter, not a criminal one. If I arrive at the scene where the complaintant is not the landowner, and the tresspasser has a written authorization to be there, then I would document who's who by ID, and advise the complaintant to have a nice day. I would instruct the complaintant to notify the landowner and if the landowner did not issue the written authorization then I would advise him to come in and sign a complaint on the tresspasser. Then I would issue a summons to the tresspasser to appear in court and let the judge sort it out. Written authorization does alot more to protect the hunter than one can imagine. And as a landowner, make sure you
A)- Put an expiration on the written authorization (ie., annual renewal) or
B)- Send written notice it is revoked certified mail.

Otherwise, 15 years from now, when your grandkid is hunting your land and Joe Blow from 2013 shows up to hunt with a note that is old as dirt, nothing can be done by the deputy on the scene since he has the owner's signature.

swamp snorkler 11-19-2013 02:18 PM

Over Zealous Popo

Spunt Drag 11-19-2013 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 644724)
He didn't have any PROOF of permission to be hunting there. I am not taking sides, but I can clearly see both sides of the argument (i.e. no blinders). Think about it from the sheriff's side (i.e. no blinders), he gets a call there is a possible trespasser (two armed men don't forget), there is no proof they are to be on the property (no written proof, no verbal proof) for all the sheriff knows they ARE trespassers at that time.


Answer this - What was the sheriff supposed to do? Should he have just let them go? :shaking: (there is not one shred of evidence they are NOT trespassing remember:eek:)

It was a complicated situation and I would have been pizzed too if I got frisked but I bet you I would have written permission next time I went out there:grinpimp:

dammit, this thing is gonna go 20 pages!

So now we have to PROVE were innocent? This was America, the burden of PROOF used to be on the state. I guess it's no big deal anymore to be questioned, harassed, frisked, and detained everytime you go to enjoy a hobby. Pass me some of that Kool-Aid!

Top Dawg 11-19-2013 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spunt Drag (Post 644772)
So now we have to PROVE were innocent? This was America, the burden of PROOF used to be on the state. I guess it's no big deal anymore to be questioned, harassed, frisked, and detained everytime you go to enjoy a hobby. Pass me some of that Kool-Aid!

I know. They like a lil government control nowadays. Look at their prez!

Duck Butter 11-19-2013 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spunt Drag (Post 644772)
So now we have to PROVE were innocent? This was America, the burden of PROOF used to be on the state. I guess it's no big deal anymore to be questioned, harassed, frisked, and detained everytime you go to enjoy a hobby. Pass me some of that Kool-Aid!

Nice strawman because I am sure every single time MR goes out and 'enjoys a hobby' he gets questioned and harassed and frisked:rotfl:


You forgot to answer this question:

What was the sheriff supposed to do? Should he have just let them go?

swamp snorkler 11-19-2013 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 644784)
Nice strawman because I am sure every single time MR goes out and 'enjoys a hobby' he gets questioned and harassed and frisked:rotfl:


You forgot to answer this question:

What was the sheriff supposed to do? Should he have just let them go?

He should have used a little common sence to see that they were BEHIND a locked gate and ket his pistol out of MRs face.

Duck Butter 11-19-2013 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swamp snorkler (Post 644786)
He should have used a little common sence to see that they were BEHIND a locked gate and ket his pistol out of MRs face.

I haven't commented on the pistol in MRs face, no sir not going there:shaking:. Just saying to look at it from the sheriff's side as far as thinking MR was a trespasser. From the sheriff's standpoint he sure fit the bill to be a trespasser (no proof of permission to be there). Glad it all got cleared up and its a lesson learned

Being behind a gate means nothing, I am sure no one trespasses behing a locked gate right?:grinpimp:

Spunt Drag 11-19-2013 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 644784)
Nice strawman because I am sure every single time MR goes out and 'enjoys a hobby' he gets questioned and harassed and frisked:rotfl:


You forgot to answer this question:

What was the sheriff supposed to do? Should he have just let them go?

I did answer the question. But let's look at your whole quote and not take a cherry picked question out of context. You stated this;


Quote:

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 644724)
He didn't have any PROOF of permission to be hunting there. I am not taking sides, but I can clearly see both sides of the argument (i.e. no blinders). Think about it from the sheriff's side (i.e. no blinders), he gets a call there is a possible trespasser (two armed men don't forget), there is no proof they are to be on the property (no written proof, no verbal proof) for all the sheriff knows they ARE trespassers at that time.


Answer this - What was the sheriff supposed to do? Should he have just let them go? :shaking: (there is not one shred of evidence they are NOT trespassing remember:eek:)

It was a complicated situation and I would have been pizzed too if I got frisked but I bet you I would have written permission next time I went out there:grinpimp:

dammit, this thing is gonna go 20 pages!

Which I replied that it's not up to us to PROVE were not trespassing. You're so concerned with what we expect the deputy should've done. I'm more concerned with what he shouldn't have done. We'll start with pointing a loaded gun at my face when I haven't broken any laws, then playing graba$$ by frisking me. But let's take up for the deputy, we'd hate for him to be bullied on an Internet forum!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:21 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - [ARG:3 UNDEFINED], Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vB.Sponsors
All content, images, designs, and logos are Copyright © 2009-2012,
Salty Cajun, LLC
No unathorized use is permitted