Fisherman/floaters Legal Rights

[ness]

Cricket -- thanks for the detailed explanation and transcript. I'm assuming that Chief wasn't really speaking in Olde English but that the substance of things said was essentially correct.

BTW -- I didn't say you weren't truthful, but there were some details missed in the previous telling of the story -- which has kinda come in spurts. I think JD asked for some clarification the other day, and was rebuffed. The fact that Chief apparently has had some run ins with this guy in the past wasn't made clear until tonight. Frankly, it is important in the overall story, though not directly so in the legality of what you all were doing.

Troutfriend -- I don't know who JDC is, but yes he was being a smart azz.

One thing I've learned in my decades in the real world is that things aren't always black and white and by the book. Take for instance the deputy, who correctly quoted the law, but let the crazy landowner say his version without correcting him. You think he just missed that, or maybe didn't want things to escalate? He let it slide.

There's no question this is a navigable stream and folks have a right to stand in it. But, this landowner convinced the deputy that this Chief guy is a habitual trespasser. Then he gets the kinda treatment JDC was dishing out. Anybody here think that helped matters? It kinda makes a difference to me in whether I want to get behind this particular cause, or just let it take it's course.

So, Chief ended up with a warrant, had to go down get things cleared up. In the end he got told to stay away for a while. That's not the law, is it? See how things work now?

[solus_vero]

All I wanted to do was get out of the house and float a river. I had never met Chief before and a few other gents before this day and I have never floated that river before that day. As I said, all I wanted to do was get out of the house and float. If I'd known there was going to be land owners with guns and the law with they're guns I wouldn't have joined in the float. I brought my camera to capture the days events witch were supposed to be a stress free day of floating and good company, not gun toting, harrasmental jerks off telling us to get off the frigging river. After the first incounter with the other landowner I thought it would be smart to have my camera rolling. I'm glad I did. I DID NOT PLAN ANY OF IT. I left the camera on and setting in the boat because standing up and letting them see me filming would have just made the whole situation worse.

[Al Agnew]

So we're not to discuss this new bit of info?

It's not about the law at this point for me -- I understand it just fine. It's about getting the full story. That's not too much to ask for given that several of us rallied behind this cause using our real names.

I thought the video was posted to discuss the legalities. That's why I said that.

Chief's previous relationship to Prater, if any, doesn't have much bearing to what was shown on the video. The landowner and deputies were factually wrong in what they said about the law "in Missouri". The last comment "If it makes you feel bigger," was uncalled for and stupid, sorry. Other than that, the video seemed fairly mild on both sides to me.

Interesting that the landowner said the county prosecutor told him his version of the law as well as the MDC agent. Interesting in that the sheriff apparently knows the correct version of the law. Were the landowner and deputies making that part up? Is the landowner on a first name basis with the county prosecutor?

I'm still saying that MDC agents should be directed on what the law is, if indeed any agent believes what the agent supposedly told the landowner and deputies.

[troutfiend1985]

Troutfriend -- I don't know who JDC is, but yes he was being a smart azz.

One thing I've learned in my decades in the real world is that things aren't always black and white and by the book. Take for instance the deputy, who correctly quoted the law, but let the crazy landowner say his version without correcting him. You think he just missed that, or maybe didn't want things to escalate? He let it slide.

There's no question this is a navigable stream and folks have a right to stand in it. But, this landowner convinced the deputy that this Chief guy is a habitual trespasser. Then he gets the kinda treatment JDC was dishing out. Anybody here think that helped matters? It kinda makes a difference to me in whether I want to get behind this particular cause, or just let it take it's course.

So, Chief ended up with a warrant, had to go down get things cleared up. In the end he got told to stay away for a while. That's not the law, is it? See how things work now?

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.

[fishinwrench]

Concerning the words spoken to the deputy and landowner.....

How do you think this situation would have turned out if the floaters simply did not speak or respond to them at all? They aren't required to ya know.

My guess is that if the floaters ignored them as if they were deaf, the deputy would have really made a serious mistake that would have ended his career.

So, while the "smartass comment" might rub a few of you the wrong way, it should have indicated to the deputy(a person somewhat trained in human reaction) that this person truly believes that he is in the right....and is being wrongfully harrassed.

But no, the deputy was not paying attention, plus he allowed the landowner to threaten someone....He was not doing his job properly at all. And it IS a potentially serious job to have. Me thinks he should stick to being a security guard at a warehouse somewhere and leave upholding the law to those properly trained to do it.

[FishinCricket]

Cricket -- thanks for the detailed explanation and transcript. I'm assuming that Chief wasn't really speaking in Olde English but that the substance of things said was essentially correct.

No need to assume, I said I was paraphrasing... I think I even pointed out, in parentheses, what he actually said, which weren't much..

BTW -- I didn't say you weren't truthful, but there were some details missed in the previous telling of the story -- which has kinda come in spurts. I think JD asked for some clarification the other day, and was rebuffed. The fact that Chief apparently has had some run ins with this guy in the past wasn't made clear until tonight. Frankly, it is important in the overall story, though not directly so in the legality of what you all were doing.

You are assuming that Chief had actually broken a law and you are assuming that the landowner was truthful to te deputies to get them there in the first place. Both assumptions are incorrect. How much you wanna bet the law didn't come running cause Mr Prater called and said "Thar's peeple down here floating mah crick!!!". He would have had to accuse someone of a crime. Obviously no crime was committed.

I'd I called right now and told the Sheriff that you came and stole my tractor, he'd be obligated to not only come and take my (false) statement, but also to find you and take yours.

Troutfriend -- I don't know who JDC is, but yes he was being a smart azz.

I'm absolutely positive that you would have handled the situation with impeccable restraint. Is there now a law against being a smartass?

One thing I've learned in my decades in the real world is that things aren't always black and white and by the book. Take for instance the deputy, who correctly quoted the law, but let the crazy landowner say his version without correcting him. You think he just missed that, or maybe didn't want things to escalate? He let it slide.

Wrong again.. Man, I hope your logic path (in the real world) isn't this twisty.. The deputy was NOT correctly quoting the law.

There's no question this is a navigable stream and folks have a right to stand in it. But, this landowner convinced the deputy that this Chief guy is a habitual trespasser.

And for lying like that he should be in trouble. In order for Chief to be a habitual trespasser her wouldhave had to ACTUALLY trespass. Why do you keep ASSUMING that he did?

Then he gets the kinda treatment JDC was dishing out. Anybody here think that helped matters? It kinda makes a difference to me in whether I want to get behind this particular cause, or just let it take it's course.

If you don't feel like standing behind the floaters in this issue, that's your own ignorance.. As mentioned earlier, I'm sure you'd have had the landowners licking your boots, but some of us were pretty agitated and spoke in our own defense. I don't blame TroutCommander (JDC) a bit for piping off like he did. After all, he was the only one in the right...

So, Chief ended up with a warrant, had to go down get things cleared up. In the end he got told to stay away for a while. That's not the law, is it? See how things work now?

So when are you headed down to float Shoal creek? It's in the darn Paddlers guide, after all... Report back after your float, let us know how you did.

[FishinCricket]

Interesting that the landowner said the county prosecutor told him his version of the law as well as the MDC agent. Interesting in that the sheriff apparently knows the correct version of the law. Were the landowner and deputies making that part up? Is the landowner on a first name basis with the county prosecutor?

It might intrigue you to know that the name mentioneD ISN'T EVEN the county prosecutor! (look it up)

[Trout Commander]

To address a few questions/comments that stood out as I browsed this train wreck...

It was me doing most of the talking in the video (my handle on here was JDC ((my initials)) prior to my taking on my current handle.

The camera was rolling because we had already been harassed once, and I had been threatened previously.

Ness, you think I am a smart butt for my actions in conversing with the deputy, I think you have a lack of testicular fortitude for the way you would have presumably handled the situation. Call it even? I "pressed the issue" with the two inches of water comment because the deputy had stated we would be trespassing if we beached our boats on the gravel bar (which we know is contradictory to Missouri law). Before continuing our conversation I wanted to ensure that I wasn't breaking his facetious law.

As far as to me asking if the CP was also an MDC agent, I had specifically asked the deputy which agent he spoke to and Prater replied with the Joe Schmo CP remark, so I asked Prater, not the deputy, if the CP was an MDC agent too.

SOMETHING, was making Prater feel like a bigger man, you should have seen the way his chest was all puffed up.

Again, it was my comment that I knew him from the internet. That was no lie or stretch of any truth. I met him for the very first time at the Lime Kiln access the morning of the float. When we were harassed the first time I had to use my deductive reasoning skills to figure out that Britt was his name even.

Also, as a footnote, the "are you going to stay" at the end of the video was directed at a fellow floater, not Prater or the deputies.

If anyone else has any more questions or already asked one that I didn't respond to feel free to ask.

[ColdWaterFshr]

SOMETHING, was making Prater feel like a bigger man, you should have seen the way his chest was all puffed up.

No doubt about it, I agree --- and what would that be? It was the fact that he had previous run-ins with Chief, and the deputies already knew of these problems, were there to catch him in the act again (right or wrong is not the issue) and were there in search of HIM. You guys were guilty by ASSOCIATION because you stated right at the beginning of the video that you knew him and were there with him. Simple as that. Yes, you were getting harassed, but your presence there was WITH a perceived troublemaker -- Chief. Hello? Is any of this making sense?

The HISTORY that makes this relevant is not what happened on this particular day. Its what happened all the previous times when you guys were not there and it was Chief and whatever problems he has had with the landowner.

[ness]

You are assuming that Chief had actually broken a law and you are assuming that the landowner was truthful to te deputies to get them there in the first place. Both assumptions are incorrect. How much you wanna bet the law didn't come running cause Mr Prater called and said "Thar's peeple down here floating mah crick!!!". He would have had to accuse someone of a crime. Obviously no crime was committed.

No -- I'm not assuming that Chief did anything wrong at all, nor am I assuming the landowner was being truthful. Matter of fact, you guys have been pretty convincing that the landowner was lying. I do know the landowner got the fuzz down there, Chief got a warrant, was asked to not float or bring a group down for a while, and Chief agreed. That's not by the book, but that's what he's got.

I'd I called right now and told the Sheriff that you came and stole my tractor, he'd be obligated to not only come and take my (false) statement, but also to find you and take yours.

Yep, that's how it works.

Is there now a law against being a smartass?

Nope, not at all, and I didn't say that. I said that it didn't help matters though. It helped keep the landowner pissed, and likely contributed to the deputy just moving on rather than having a discussion right there as to what the law is. And the landowner got to bend the deputies ear while they were out tracking down Chief.

Wrong again.. Man, I hope your logic path (in the real world) isn't this twisty.. The deputy was NOT correctly quoting the law.

I think the deputy said you could be in the water, not on the banks. And he let the landowner spout off, most likely to defuse matters. Nothing too twisty there, right?

And for lying like that he should be in trouble. In order for Chief to be a habitual trespasser her wouldhave had to ACTUALLY trespass. Why do you keep ASSUMING that he did?

Again, I'm not assuming he IS a habitual trespasser. What I am assuming is that since the guy knows Chief/Britt by name, and stated something to the effect that he had done this before, and convinced the deputy to come down and talk, that there's something there. A better approach would have been to simply state that you hadn't been on the banks, and that you'd make sure everyone in the group knew that was the law.

If you don't feel like standing behind the floaters in this issue, that's your own ignorance.. As mentioned earlier, I'm sure you'd have had the landowners licking your boots, but some of us were pretty agitated and spoke in our own defense. I don't blame TroutCommander (JDC) a bit for piping off like he did. After all, he was the only one in the right...

Well, like I said in the earlier thread: there's the law and there's the LAW. You wanna be right, or you wanna fish. Lipping off to a cop is always a bad idea. It's only ignorance on my part if I get behind something when I don't have enough info to make an informed decision. IF Chief has a history of trespassing and lipping off, and you guys come along and lip off, I'm really not interested in helping. That's my logic in a nutshell. Make sense now? BTW, based on your transcript -- I think you handled it fine.

So when are you headed down to float Shoal creek? It's in the darn Paddlers guide, after all... Report back after your float, let us know how you did.

Huh?