Quote:
Originally Posted by Duck Butter
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?  (there is not one shred of evidence they are NOT trespassing remember  )
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 
dammit, this thing is gonna go 20 pages! |
Sheriff shows up to a call from a guy that does not own the land, talks to Marsh RAt. Marsh Rat says he has been hunting with permission on john Doe's land for 3yrs. At that point the frisking and gun waving should stop. Sheriff should have asked the D ic k that called the cops how he knows that marshrat doesnt have permission. Marshrat knows land owners full name and phone number, D i ck that called the cops could have confirmed the info to be true. Sheriff sounds like he is a D i c k too.