troutfiend1985

Crickets own explanation tells you that the deputy reaffirms the landowners inaccurate law that you can't be on the water by saying "not in missouri man." Regardless, the right thing for the deputy to do there is to set the landowner straight, tell him that within the river they are fine, but outside the river they aren't. I'm not saying this is black and white, I'm saying this is a shade of light gray. The only thing gray is whether someone was actually on the solid ground. Outside of that there is no issue here. look, I'm not saying the "if that makes you feel bigger" is the greatest statement, ok he was a smartass. But I assure you that he could have said a lot worse, and the deputy didn't do a great job of handling the situation from a legal point. If he knew the law correctly, then why does he care about what chief was doing? That is a big fact there, and that leads me to believe that someone(Prater) is buddy-buddy with the deputy.

I would say that a couple of people have lost a lot of respect from me on this issue. Not that it carries much weight, but I just wanted to throw that out there. Look, I wasn't there, but I don't think the comments were smart assed Ness. And if you think that somehow Chiefs relationship with this Prater guy has any bearing on what was right and wrong, well then go pee up a tree and tell yourself its raining, because that is just about how much sense you guys are making. Really I don't like calling people out, but what makes you think that you have a need to know? What, because of an internet forum petition you signed? Really? Allright, I guess that made all of the difference in the world and Chief along with Buzz and Cricket should spill their guts about every beef they have ever had with a person that might fractionally make a difference. BTW, did you guys sign that petition because you were backing Chief from a legal stance, or you were taking sides chiefs "personal issues with Prater/Bad Blood" (if there are any, and I really don't think there are from what I know) Get real and grow up.

Like me to break it down into lay mans terms, tough. Basically I'm telling you that the relevance of Chiefs relationship with the landowner is substantially outwieghed by the unfair prejudice it would cause to a jury if this were a real case. Have fun boys, another final in one day.

Outside of chief walking on the land past the high water mark, Chiefs relationship with this man has no relevance to the fact that chief and the other floaters were legally on a floatable stream. You take on what is and isn’t relevant, and why information is not relevant, is mediocre.

Yeah, and I don't think the relevance is that probitive, your honor. The defense cites FRE 403(would look up the MO Statute but since you started the legal mumbo jumbo you can have fun with that).

Nope, I don't think that you have the legal knowledge to make that claim, and I'm not just saying that because I'm on an internet forum. Stare Decisis runs pretty heavy in the courts blood, and just because someone was making a fit about public way rights doesn't mean that the law changes. 57 years and running, and you think this would be the first time that a landowner had a misconception of his private property rights? And like Buzz said, none of us have the full story.

Couldn't disagree with you more. That whole conversation shows that the law was not served in this situation. I could care less if someone was being set up, if you are harassing innocent people who are within the law then you have no claim of foul play, this man had no reasonable expectation of privacy here. And the deputy saying that any agent would say the same thing is full of crap, and I hope he gets an ear full. Would it have been nice to have the whole thing on youtube, yeah but someone saying that they were on the bank doesn't carry a lot of weight with me. And ness, a guy being a smartass after the law enforcement officer just got the law wrong, I'm not feeling too much sympathy for the deputy. Get the law right and guess what, there is not confrontation. It's easy to play monday morning quarter back here, but I bet a lot of us would have said thing far worse than "if it makes you feel bigger."

Drath, OB, its good to see you guys.

Just wanted to let you guys know that I'm hosting a fly swap. I know that this is usually a winter thing, but with the rains and all I figured we might havve some free time. I believe that there are 5 or six spots still open.

I never rejoice in a persons death, regardless of hatred towards another. Doing so shows a lack of class at the best. That MLK quote is a great one.

Sounds good to me.

OK, July 1st will be the deadline. When you are done and ready, PM me and I will get you address info.

I was thinking that if we can get 12 people, then you tie out 12 flies. Everyone sends their dozen to me, and in return you get one dozen flies back, including one of your own(it just makes life a little easier when divying them up for me).

Glad to see you.

I think this is one of the most beautifully concise expressions I have laid my eyes on in a long time. I couldn't object to anything you said in this. Not that my opinion is worth much, but this is a great, great view of rights, and what America is.

You'll have fun with it, And you might get some flies that you never thought would work. If we get twelve guys, you tie 12 flies and ship them to me. I take everyone's flies and divy them up, and then send them back out. So basically you get an assortment. Flies can be what ever you want, crazy complicated or thread midges. All I ask is that you only send flies that you would personally fish with. Right now I'm either going to tie a Cree Crackle, a purple crackle or a hunchback scud. Haven't made my mind up. FT are you in?

I'm willing to host a swap if anyone is interested. I was thinking just general trout flies, but if someone has a better idea let me know. I was thinking of a deadline of July 1st. Anyone interested? And I was also thinking of limiting to 12 including myself. 1. TF1985 Cree Crackleback SZ 16 2. FT57- Caddis Emerger SZ 16. 3. Zach Bearden TBD 4. Gavin TBD 5. Mic Mic's Wet Brass, size 12 6. Jason R. TBD (possible Meat Whistle) 7. Drath- Reverse Para Emerger 8. Outside Bend Slump buster 9. Cocry 10. Brian 11. 12.

Who needs to conceal it? I'm just going to get a holster, carry a colt on my hip like I'm John Wayne, and then buy a t-shirt that says "guns don't kill people, I kill people." Or maybe a t-shirt that says "911 is for after you smoke em'" Obviously joking. Outside the jokes I would like to sind out my sincere thoughts and prayers for this persons family.

KA, that's what I was saying, that the 5th Amendment applies to "legals" as well as "illegals", I thought I made that pretty clear. It's why I underlined persons and then bolded nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. I'm hoping that you just misread my posts, I'm pretty up to date on the constitution, or I wouldn't be posting on it. The distinction I was making was that persons refer to everone, citizens means US Citizens. And it's obvious throught the constitution that these are used in different contexts, to refer to different rights. I.E. 14th Amendment. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

LOL. My last comment because this is like arguing with a wall. Here's what I said broken down in simple terms. He is being tried in US Courts, for a crime committed in the US. He has rights, per the 5th Amendment because of the previous sentence. My teacher isn't a Marxist, it's funny to me that you assume a political view when the guy is an expert on the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. I posted the 5th Amendment, I told you that because he is being tried in the US that he has rights protected by the Constitution. I never said anything about fixing this problem of illegal immigration, you just want to interject that. Final point, and this is it because it's nuts that I have to explain this. Read the constitution. Read it, it should be a requirement that everyone reads this thing before they talk about it. Read the powers of the government, and the rights of the citizens. IT scares me that we throw around words such as rights and unconstitutional so freely. It also scares me when people are willing to buy what they here through mediums of communication without putting critical thought into what they say. One more thing, what is my "side" that I'm arguing for. I have no clue what the heck you mean by this. I guess my side is "The People Who Wish To Read The Constitution as it was Written" Geez.

PO, I'm going to state this in as nice of terms as I can. READ THE CONSTITUTION. What noun does the 5th Amendment begin with, "person" as oppose to "citizen" like in the 14th Amendment, or in a lot of other clauses and amendments. As for your reference to our forefathers being on your side, ask yourself who wrote the constitution. Then ask yourself whether the news journalists and radio hosts wrote or have even read the constitution or a case interpreting it, or know what the commerce clause is, or what Due Process stands for. I posted the link in the last one. Find something in that text, or case law, which gives you some authority for your stance. I believe the issue is "Whether a person, lacking the qualification as a citizen of the United States, being tried in a court of the United States, has constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment." Have fun with that.

This whole schooling thing has to pay off at some point right There was a case, I want to say San Antonio School Disctrict, that held public schools cannot deny a child of an illegal immigrant the right to go to school. Anyways, If you guys listen to talk radio on political issues, read the constitution. Read it a few times, and make sure you get an idea of what it means. This is why I don't listen to talk radio. They babble, misqoute and misrepresent the actual terms of our constitution. I had the misfortune to listen to one of these guys for an hour because my girlfriend loves to listen/watch them on tv. The guy qouted the declaration of independence as the constitution. Give me a break. And then she was watching some liberal talker on tv who qouted the preamble to the constitution, and then acted like it was binding. If you're on here, that means you have internet access, which means that you can read the constitution for free. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html Before you want to qoute something as being constitutional or not, read it. If a talking head, be it red or blue, says somethings unconstitutional, read it. Inform yourselves.

I think the proofs in the pudding. If you don't think that an illegal immigrant who is being tried in a US court has rights, then read the Constitution. I garauntee that you will find some clauses only apply to "citizens" and that some apply to "persons" or "people." This isn't a red/blue elephant or donkey argument mind you, this is simple reading of the constitution.

Here's the real easy way to shoot down this theory. Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. That's due process boys and girls. That whole "person" thing, rather than "citizen" is used. Makes you think huh? I would imagine that retribution is important to this family, this guy is being tried for a case in which the wrong occurred in the US. Thus, I would, and apparently some old dead guys, would rather give him DP of law. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've been tying for years now Mic, and I could never imagine tying something like this. It truly is a work of art. A lot of those guys on flytyingforum.com have an absurd amount of skill, and to me it is entertaining seeing what they can do with a thread, some feathers and a hook.