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]
I doubt you would shoot a 74 year old man "advancing" towards you armed with a stick or cattle prod ASA.
It's not common down south to shoot trespassers at will that I know of (maybe Texas..lol)
This is not a gun rights or property rights issue for me. It appears (as written) that a jerk moved into the Bowling Green environs 20 years ago and went about immediately to extort money from his neighbors using very old statutes and has continued being a dick and has had bad blood with the old curmudgeon next door and when the old guy came onto dickhead's vaunted property armed with a stick or prod to gather his livestock, they had words and according to dickhead, old man menaced him and dickhead shot the old man firing 6 shots.
If FReeperdom thinks that's all hunky dory or that we should celebrate this (using info as given from the article) as a prudent exercise in property rights or RKBA, then ya'll can't count me out on this one.
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.
Frankly I wouldn't want my stock wandering with others either.
So, where your property meets theirs, you have two fences? That is silly, and probably not true. When two people live next to each other and share a fence, it is a common responsibility to keep that fence up. Especially when both have livestock. Those are the rules, and if you don't like them move into an apartment.
What would YOU do? Stand there and let him whack at you until he got tired?
The article says that Brooks never paid, so the fence on his side of Ames' property was paid for by Ames alone. It was Brooks who then went on to be a jerk, repeatedly damaging the fence.
My reaction would be based on the preceived threat level.
My response will always be to use force greater than the threat.
As I said last post, we're all speculating. The trial should prove interesting.
Sounds like hand carved coffins, only he didn't do a good job of covering up.
In the arid West, there is open range. Folks who want to keep cattle off their property have to fence their property at their own expense. Works better for huge properties than this eastern law meant for farms of about 40 acres in areas of greater precipitation.
One element that has not been fully developed here is the "certified disease free" issue. Bovine trichomonosis is spread through sexual contact. http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/ahfss/ah/pdfs/Trich_in_ca_b9.pdf
The disease was rapidly spreading between herds through "rent-a-bulls." In California, you cannot sell a bull or use it for breeding without testing. If it is found to have the disease, it is ususally slaughtered.
Having a non-certified bull in with your herd increases the risk of disease and spreading to calves. It could wipe out the market value of your whole herd.
This does not justify the shooting, by any means, but it probably contributed to the rancher's ire.
Fair fa' yer honest sonsie face, mon!
Speaking in general terms my opinion (and I cannot believe I've let myself be drawn into this many replies) is that Ames is a jerk on general principles because of his fence related litigation.
I did not speak specifically to Ames being a jerk in relation to Brooks.
Course if the reports of the number of rounds fired are true and it took him 6 shots to down an old guy with a big stick then maybe he IS a jerk on all counts.!
Ames had 675 acres, but no silencer.
We have them like that here in KY. Try pigs in your new clover.
Just because the jerk followed the law doesn't make him right. 40 million abortions makes that point.
Oh man.........
What? I thought everybody researched obscure, 17th century laws concerning fences ;-)
Just one other thought, how does a 17th century law, that predates the United States, get held up in court?
First, Kill all the GD Lawyers. Otherwise they will kill you and in a Court of Law, convince God that you died a natural death.
Ames should be turned over to the terrorists to have his head amputated with a dull rusty knife.
I could applaude that, like the Democrats applaud the beheading of innocent people.
Maybe there's a similar law, based on the 17th Century concept, that the state supreme court upheld? Just a thought.
I'm waiting for someone to demonstrate to me that expecting one's neighbors TO KEEP THEIR DARN CATTLE OFF MY LAND is "unfair."
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.