Meramec River Shooting

[Brian Jones]

One thing for certain, this WILL change the recreational floating industry in our state.

[LarrySTL]

There are no heros in this story, or, as SB said, this one is dumb and dumber.

When the guy pisses in your woods, and bunch of beer-ed up friends of his grab rocks and walk toward you, its time to go. Go and call the law if you want, but go.

Flip side is when a crazy looking dude comes out of the woods waving a gun around and telling you you better go, you better go.

Darwin awards for both of em perhaps ?

[Justin Spencer]

I agree, things just aren't always as simple as that. Like mentioned a few posts ago, either in this thread or the other one about this topic. There is always THAT guy that can't be restrained and it takes the proper authorities to put him down.

http://fox2now.com/2013/07/21/one-dead-following-float-trip-fight/

If you read the comments supposedly some of the people were there and the thought of an altercation is being talked up more than what really happened. All hearsay but just some food for thought.

Whoops I already forgot about what I had previously said. Sad that if the cousin was the one that wouldn't stand down, the other guy paid the ultimate price. Note to self, leave guy that won't stand down behind, he's probably just trouble anyway.

During the height of our season I probably deal with anywhere from 500-700 people a week. Out of these I have one or two people per year that are belligerent. Unfortunately these are the people that are remembered. Most of the people have friends and family with them and are out to have a fun time and are not looking for trouble. Most landowners know what they are getting into when the buy on the river and are very accommodating, a select few are bat crazy! Seemed like the wife was very forthcoming about what happened, and if it went down like she said there has to be prosecution. I could see the jury acquitting on self-defense, but seems pretty far fetched depending on how the law is worded.

Sorry, this jumped around a bit, but just a few thoughts.

[Justin Spencer]

One thing for certain, this WILL change the recreational floating industry in our state.

Doubt it.

[Al Agnew]

Aarrgghh!!! I absolutely hate it when people in the news or the people who they are interviewing who should know what they're talking about get things so wrong. Look guys, we've hashed this out before here, but I KNOW that what I'm going to say is right because I've researched this many times in quite a bit of depth.

The Meramec is classified non-navigable. That's a fact. But because of the Elder vs. Delcour MO Supreme Court decision and subsequent court decisions, along with Attorney General opinions which do hold some weight, it is generally acknowledged that the public has the right to float these streams like the Meramec AND get out on gravel bars for any non-destructive and law-abiding purpose. It is considered a sort of public easement. In other words, navigability in the legal sense is NOT relevant here. The Elder vs. Delcour case was based upon a disagreement ON THE MERAMEC, and on a section that's considerably farther upstream, well above Maramec Spring. So unless and until the Supreme Court decision is reversed, there is absolutely no doubt that the floaters had the right to be on that gravel bar. Now whether they had the right to pee on it, or threaten to throw rocks at somebody threatening them, or be drunk and disorderly as they almost certainly were, is another question altogether, but they absolutely most certainly no ifs ands or buts DID have the right to be on that gravel bar.

On rivers the size of the Meramec in that area, there should be absolutely no question on this, and for any law enforcement or elected official to not know that is inexcusable. Where the question comes in is on streams that are too small to be considered easily floatable year-round. But since the Elder vs. Delcour case was based upon a section of the Meramec that fits that description (with flows that get down to less than 30 cfs in a dry summer, when dragging the canoe in a lot of riffles is required), it should extend to just about any stream that supports some canoe floating.

There are several issues here, but they boil down to this...as others have noted, be careful what you wish for. If stream access is decided by legislation due to this incident, in the current political climate it could very well reduce the public's access to floatable streams, although any such law would surely be challenged in the MO Supreme Court.

And what it should really point to is the need for better law enforcement on the streams to curb some of the horrible behavior that is no doubt ticking off streamside landowners for good reason. I've said it before...even if we have to pay more for the right to float these streams in the form of licenses or access fees or rental surcharges, we really, really need a much bigger law enforcement presence on them.

[Lancer09]

I don't see any conceivable way how the guy could get let off on "self-defense." If it is like a lot of the stories are saying I think the guy is going to go away for a long time.

I'm not optimistic that it will particularly change floating laws unfortunately, there are SOO many landowners across the state would fight this, and out of everyone that uses our rivers I think there would only be a select few that would really voice their stance. Your casual weekend floater is probably not going to know, or fight for stream access laws.

[Gavin]

Stupid is as stupid does. Both should have walked but the landowner has a good defense. They were coming right for me!

[jdmidwest]

Every knucklehead on the stream already carries a gun!

In this case, it looks like they left it behind. The river rats were only carrying rocks.

[jdmidwest]

I have run across this many times, landowner threatens because he owns the land. Sometimes they have a gun, they all want to shout at you as you float by. Key to the matter is, float on by. Trying to point out that you are in the right just makes things worse. Keep on paddling. Fishing usually sucks around them anyway. They don't bite with all of the noise.

I float many streams that are classified as non navigable. They are owned by decent farmers and people that work hard for what they have. They have paid money for what they have and are taxed yearly for the property. Many have had to deal with a drunk like that, a poacher, someone trespassing on their property, or just found a bunch of trash left behind. Maybe he was tired of all of the piles of dung and toilet paper littering his property along the river. Standing in their face and telling them that a judge determined that you have the right to float thru and use their property will only make them madder.

Put yourself in their shoes for a moment. Do you stop in the middle of a public street and go into someones yard to take a whiz on a tree? Would you get enraged if you saw someone taking a whiz in your yard?

But nothing is worth the life that was taken over a simple matter like this. The group should have had the common sense to bug out, not go after him with a bunch of rocks. I doubt if anyone could call this one self defense, but that will be up to a judge and jury now.

[Feathers and Fins]

This story has made the AP and many news agencies now.

Here is my fear; People now have heard about this and WILL carry now. My fear is now if a land-owner or floater have a confrontation a gun will now be used.

Castle law does not apply here sheriff has confirmed that.