Posted on 07/23/2013 10:58:05 AM PDT by rwa265
Multiple people approach the sand bar.
Some male or male walks on to the owners property to micturate.
Owner comes down and tells them they’re trespassing, and to leave.
Rather than leave, they pick up rocks and talk back.
It’s clear he’s armed, and the shooter sees the other party is armed.
One of the males commits assault, shooter pops the guy in the head.
One of those parties ‘shouldn’t have been there’, as it were, and it wasn’t the owner.
The owner approached alone, made it clear he was armed.
The assumption is the weapon was legally purchased and owned.
If the shooter has felonies, he’s done.
If not, it will go to court if the owner is offered a plea involving jail time. If its non-felony, and he gets probation, he’ll plead.
A fence wouldn’t work in WA state - Forest and Fish Law says that 100 feet from the stream is the state’s, except you pay taxes on it. No fence option there.
If they stay on the bar, they would be fine. With the trespass and assault, its a tough case for the prosecution in a jury trial.
So many of these tragedies could be avoided if the government was doing the job it was meant to.
Instead, 99% of their effort is spent getting money from one group to give it to another.
That’s what I’d do too.
I'm sure the State will take care of that - probably for 20 years to life. Murder with aggravating stupidity (warning shots - into the air and into rocky ground??? Shooting "the one closest" instead of the one who was threatening???) usually leads to nice tall fences, with guard towers as a bonus. They might even throw in dogs for free, and the shooter looks like he likes dogs.
In Missouri, we have learned to stay out da bushes.
Your recitation leaves out a lot of relevant, determinative, facts.
ROFL!!
RinaseaofDs, I kind of agree with you. I hate the drunk idiots on the Current, and I’m sure they are in force in the neighboring rivers too. I’d like to see if the shooter’s house was close by river’s edge.
There are millions of Ok places to pee along the river for men and woman. When there is a house close to the banks, never saw a reason to stop there and pee, just paddle up a little and you will get a good, private spot.
Never shoot someone who has more witnesses that you do.
Precisely. When trespassing and told to leave, just leave.
Proverbs 22:3: The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it.
The 2nd amendment gives people the right to protect themselves and their property. The people were trespassing and being hostile. The landowner had every right to use his firearm in the manner that was intended. And what does the landowner’s looks have to do with anything? Only the young and gorgeous get to defend themselves?
In MO, you do indeed own to the center of the stream, the opposite land owner the same. However, the free flowing water is open to anyone (once they obtain access through a road/bridge right of way or other access. Step on dry land, however, and you are indeed trespassing.
The facts of the situation, as always will make the difference. If the land owner directed the “visitors to leave, and they did not, and even approached and “assaulted” (unwanted physical contact) the land owner may have a defense.
Not enough facts as of yet. Wife states husband “touched” his arm. Landowner may have another story, ad” contact bit more offensive than a congenial “let’s talk this out, friend” contact.
As a MO stream front property owner, I do understand the landowners situation. Trash, piles of feces, noise, etc is not a fun thing to deal with. However, I cannot justify more than fencing the banks proper and placing “Posted” signs. Most canoer’s are polite and careful, but “yutes” and derelicts are there as well.
Crockett thought Darr had a pretty mouth and wanted to hear him squeel like a pig.
Good grief . Why didn’t the guy just pee in the river ?
Are they the ones that tried to close the river to rafters a few years back, peddling some horse s**t about how their old Spanish land grant superseded Texas state law on navigable waterways?
So as a property owner I’m obliged to confront trespassers unarmed?
When I was small a car sttopped and people jumped our garden fence along a rural road, where they then began cutting our asparagus. From about 200 yds down the hill in a field, my father started yelling at them. They briefly looked up and went back to cutting. My father then pulled a high powered deer rifle out, worked the bolt, and snugged into the strap. A second later a section of the electric pole next to them exploded with the impact of a high velocity round about 10’ off the ground. Their knives went flying, as they dove back over the fence. Lowering the rifle my father yelled, “You can hear me now, can’t you, you SOBs?!!”
They did not stick around to argue property rights.
I have chosen not to purchase a piece of property for all these very reasons. It has a clear stream that is used all summer for floating. I don’t want a steady stream of people going across my pasture. It is just a problem looking for a place to happen. This does not mean I don’t think anyone else should own such a property just not me.
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.