Where
 

What parish did this take place in?

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.

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????

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.

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).

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:

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!!!!

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

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!

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

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.

Over Zealous Popo

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!

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.

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:

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;


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!