Posted on 06/28/2004 9:09:55 AM PDT by ijcr
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:42:32 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
BOWLING GREEN, Va. -- Lawyer and part-time cattle farmer John F. Ames got off on the wrong foot with his new neighbors in the 1980s when he invoked a 17th-century law to compel them to pay for part of the fence around his 675-acre estate.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Thanks! I just thought that this thread needed to be clear when it came to what was and what was not lawful, and remove the emotion from it.
While Mr. Ames appears to have been a bad neighbor when he moved in, something we don't actually know for ourselves, he was within his legal rights, and the VSC uphld the law as it had been since Colonial days (and if people don't like it, get the legislative body to change it.)
On the other hand, the deceased was a jerk as well. (Did he deserve to die? Probably not, but then again, I wasn't there, so let a jury decide based upon more facts than a brief news article can provide.)
And, let me add that I have personally experienced the "Green Acres" scenario, involving the city dude mvoing in with the country dude. It does take some time for people to adjust, and for the natives to accept a newcomer...
Around here, when city people move in and act like fools, we call them "cidiots."
Not every story has to have a hero. Since I am used to the shared fence cost thing, we'll have to recuse me on that issue. The dead guy isn't any more a hero than the lawyer who shot him. Difficult situation. Brooks was on Ames' property in violation of a court order, and had at least a bit of a violent history, including assault, trespass, destruction of property, etc. He was not unkown on the police blotter. There's a very good chance that this was legitimately self-defense. It might not even make it to trial, despite the apparent dislike of the defendant (remember, no heroes here!) in the neighborhood.
Interesting case, with lots of irrelevant side-show hoopla, like the number of shots.
Tip for Ames' lawyer: get the toxicology report on our Mr. Brooks. If he had the drink taken before his unexpected flight from the planet, Ames walks with OJ.
color me biased on this one
Not a problem at all, WD. You wouldn't be on the jury, if it comes to that, precisely because of that honesty.
I figured your post was Rabbie's -- but the tagline threw me. :-)
Thanks for the psychoanalysis Eggman.
Where should I send the quarter?
I do not agree with those here who think this killing was justified givent the info we have. Simple as that.
On a brighter note, it's a glorious day here in Nashville and I just got him a few minutes ago and plan to now go and have a nice 4 mile walk at Harpeth Hall.
Good Day!
Where had Brooks been charged prior with assault, I missed that.
Not flaming. I just reviewed the thread and I did find that the two had already fought before and that Brooks had fired a shotgun.
...also that Ames did community service for "aiming his tractor at a state trooper"...lol
Give me a big steamin' pile of haggis and I'll be tossin' somethin'.
Does that include the Fugitive Slave Act of 1856?
Kenny.....NOW we're being baited. This thread has degenerated further than I expected. My hot tub holds a lot more interest for me, and I'm off to it NOW.
~</;o)
And if law enforcement was on that particular job, I imagine one paid the price. Perhaps an apt, but opposite, analogy might be abortion. It's legal, but you are certainly under no obligation to help.
It would be historically interesting to see exactly how many citizens were cited for helping runaway slaves avoid the slave catcher.
After you climb out of the HT, check out the Kudzu thread. It's around here somewhere.
Break the pill in half next time.
btw, if you can't shoot some old 74 year old geezer well enough to disable him when he is armed with his cattle prod or stick without dumping all 6 shots in him then maybe you ought to get theyself away from the keyboard and to the range.
If you are going to tell me a gun works for non-lethal force, then you are pretty ignorant of firearms. It is quite possible to mortally wound someone and still have them finish you off before they expire. That (and human physiological reactions to stress that make it very difficult to aim accurately or assess the number of shots) is the reason why many police departments are ok with cops emptying their gun into a suspect once lethal force is warranted.
We are talking about a 74 year old man armed with a cattle prod or stick allegedly (dead men tell no tales, he was there to round up his errant cattle and a prod or stick would seem appropriate).
If you feel that requires lethal force by expending your wheelgun's full load then you must be a real wuss.
I do not feel the shooting was justified from I can glean from published circumstance. You apparently do.
If you wish last word, then be my guest.
Do you know what a cattle prod is?
>>My point is that he forced others to help him pay for that fence. If it was that important to him he should have paid for the darn thing himself. <<
"John F. Ames invoked a 17th-century law to compel them to pay for part of the fence around his 675-acre estate."
This is the kind of law that is known to ranchers all over America. Ames bought 675-acres. Part of his land was joined by Oliver Brooks who had some cattle and had been using Ames's land as if it was his own pasture land.
Evidently, either Brooks didn't go over and ask to lease the land or just said to hell with it, I been using it all these years and this new dude ain't gonna stop me me.
Or maybe Ames said I need you to keep your cattle on your property because I am going to run a herd of my own. Since the land was adjoining, 50% of the fence cost went to Brooks.
Now, my hunch is that Brooks was running too many cattle for the acreage that he had or else why would he need to knock down the adjoining fence?
>>The lawsuit accused Mr. Brooks of pushing over fence posts on at least three occasions and cutting fence wires at least six times, calling the actions "mean-spirited, malicious, willful and vindictive."<<
Run your cattle on my land and if we aren't friends, I'll call the brand inspector to verify that they're yours, then I'll take you to small claims court and get permission to sell YOUR cattle from a judge.
Judges will do this kind of thing just to keep ranchers out of the court room. When I sell your 4 year old $10,000 registered bull to fix $2000 worth of fence damage and then send you a check for the remainder, I guarantee that you will maintain the fence line much more closely than you ever had before.
Yes, I've actually seen this happen. When breeding season comes around you will keep your bull as far away as possible from my cattle as is possible. Especially because I am running pure bred Angus and you've got a Herford herd. The last thing I want is a calf that has any white on it.
(This is the kind of law that is known to ranchers all over America.) I hate to tell you how many dogs I have shot that were chasing my pregnant cows. The result from running hard is generally a miscarriage or a dead calf birth. Something I don't want and something the kid setting up on the road didn't want was for me to kill his big friendly labrador who was just having fun chasing $500,000 worth of pregnant cows.
What really pisses them off is when I call the sheriff and give a license plate number of the dog owner then they have to get another mortgage lien to pay my costs. Yes, that's happened. Just once thankfully. Sheriffs deputies followed them by chopper out to the highway and a Texas DPS patrol officer arrested them.
Now as to the shooting, I wasn't there, but I hope I have explained the fencing laws.
Yup you sure have, and I am amazed the owner of one of the dogs you shot never kicked your butt.
You explained splendidly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.