ness Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 Dont fight him...outlast him. I believe ness suggested that on page 3. John
ness Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 I just want to see it clearly spelled out. I do my best to obey all the laws and do not want to end up getting a citation or arrested because the law enforcement doesnt know the law and then have to spend the time and money to prove i was in the right. I believe ness had a suggestion along those lines on about page 4. I'll shut up now. John
mic Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 Careful Ness, you will throw out your shoulder patting you back like that.
fishinwrench Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 I guess my main point, and position is; If Chief is charged with trespassing (whether the sentance is suspended with an agreement or he is fined) then LAW for that section of stream is most definately being made. From that point on anyone calling the sheriff because of someone on thier gravel bar, or wading the stream adjacant to private property in that county is going to result in a trespassing charge. And neighboring counties will most likely follow suit. So to the ones who care and enjoy spending time on Shoal cr. it is a pretty big deal, whether anyone else considers it "making law" or not.
ozark trout fisher Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 I guess my main point, and position is; If Chief is charged with trespassing (whether the sentance is suspended with an agreement or he is fined) then LAW for that section of stream is most definately being made. I'm not a lawyer, but if my understanding of this is correct, it seems that the prosecutor is willing to drop the charges. If the charges are dropped, then I really don't see how any particular law or legal precedent could end up getting set by that. In my rudimentary legal understanding, I believe that legal precedents can be made by someone getting convicted of a crime, or someone getting acquitted of a crime. But if the charges are dropped without a trial? I don't see how that is going to affect any sort of legal interpretation about how that stretch of stream can be used. Could be wrong though. As I said, I don't exactly know a great deal about this.
eric1978 Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 And in my rudimentary legal understanding, it wouldn't be a binding precedent unless it were decided by a higher court, so a decision made by a "clown court," as hoglaw puts it, would be quite worthless anyway.
stlfisher Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 the way I see it there are two possible outcomes. Either Chief's was in the wrong or Prater was harrasing him. If it was me I would see if I could charge Prater for harrasment based on the case law. You might not win, but I bet you might hit Prater in the pocket book a bit. So instead of challenging the law directly you are forcing Prater to defend himself which might cost you less money, cost him some, and you get a chance to address the navigable stream issues. No idea if that is is possible, but just a thought...
Smalliebigs Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 Al, the South Fork Saline Creek??? I have never seen it but I'm looking at my maps as we speak........lol
ColdWaterFshr Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 Other creeks not in the float book: Marble Creek - whitewater run mostly Turkey Creek - same Little Niangua could probably come up with a few more
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now