Fisherman/floaters Legal Rights

[jdmidwest]

Doesn't matter if there was history with Chief and Prater or not...the floaters had the right to be there and do what they were doing. Too bad for the landowner if he doesn't like it. It's the law.

If someone has aroused the landowner to the point that he feels like he needs to confront all floaters passing thru, then the bad publicity may lead to a new court hearing causing a new decision as to what "rights" the public has on "private lands" surrounding Missouri streams.

Still waiting for the rest of the story.

[Buzz]

You don't know the whole story and I'll leave it at that.

[troutfiend1985]

Solus,

What is missing from this is particular incident on Shoal Creek is context. Thank you for providing the video clip. It gives us a glimpse.

It seems apparent from this clip that there is a history with Chief prior to this float as they were asking for his whereabouts, and even knew him by name -- I can only presume it was him they were looking for and not so much you guys. They sure as heck didn't know you guys by first name, did they? It may be a big leap, but the fact that you decided to roll some video of this incident is also telling in that maybe you were prepared for exactly what transpired. Maybe not. In any event, it seems to me that your float party was probably not the hapless, feckless, innocent floaters wandering through a random stretch of river in the wilds of Newton County and never had any inkling about this guy Prater.

In my view, this is now LESS about floaters rights and more about provocation and whatever happened with Chief and this landowner PRIOR to this float. Maybe he can speak more to that than you guys. Or maybe you know already of some of the stories.

I still agree in principle on floaters rights and would like to see that set straight. However, this clip leaves me more questions about the whole back-story and caring less about your question of what floaters rights are.

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."

[ColdWaterFshr]

Your honor, please call Buzz to the stand and make him solemnly testify to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

[troutfiend1985]

If someone has aroused the landowner to the point that he feels like he needs to confront all floaters passing thru, then the bad publicity may lead to a new court hearing causing a new decision as to what "rights" the public has on "private lands" surrounding Missouri streams.

Still waiting for the rest of the story.

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.

[ColdWaterFshr]

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."

Some of the first words out of the deputies mouth were not YOUR firstname, were they troutfiend? I find that curious. Move to strike troutfiends comments your honor, overly ambiguous, argumentative, and having no bearing on the HISTORY of Chief Greybear with this landowner.

Sustained.

[troutfiend1985]

Eric and Buzz, you haven't been paying attention. Chief discovered that he had a warrant for his arrest, much to his surprise, which was why, and again I'm assuming much because I don't know the whole story, but its why he went in to the poh-leese station and met with the Sheriff. Armed with signatures from uh-this-here forum he met with the sheriff and the sheriff pretty much told Chief to stay away from this stretch of Shoal Creek for a good while and allow a cool-off period. The history regarding Chief and this landowner IS relevant. Objection overruled. Continue. Your honor, please call Chief Greybear to the stand.

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).

[ColdWaterFshr]

Say what?

[troutfiend1985]

Some of the first words out of the deputies mouth were not YOUR firstname, were they troutfiend? I find that curious. Move to strike troutfiends comments your honor, overly ambiguous, argumentative, and having no bearing on the HISTORY of Chief Greybear with this landowner.

Sustained.

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.

[troutfiend1985]

Say what?

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.