# Trespasser Vent - redux



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

This morning I got a call reporting a gun shot seemingly on my farm. I have given written authorization to two neighbors, BK and MS, to hunt my farm and prosecute trespassers. BK was feeding his pigs at 7:15 when he heard the shot. Though our properties are technically abutting, it is across about a 1000 feet of brushy swamp. So BK jumped in his truck and drove 10 minutes around the swamp to get to my front farm entrance. On the way he called me and MS to make sure it wasn't one of us firing the gun.

MS grabbed his rifle, met BK at my main gate and they went looking in MS's truck. My farm is 164 acres, some heavily wooded, and surrounded by national forest and swamp, so there are lots of places for a trespasser to hide. They found the trespasser on the back side of my farm, not more than 50 feet inside the property line. BK used his command voice and told the guy to come out and leave his gun behind. MS stayed back by the truck with his rifle and called his fave game warden/cop.

MS made the guy stand in front of the truck, BK retrieved the hunter's 30-06 rifle and locked it inside the truck. Since BK and MS have my written authorization to prosecute trespass, FL law allows them to detain the guy with a threat of force. A warden showed up within 10 minutes, an unusually fast response for my area. 

I live 8 minutes away, arrived 10 minutes behind the first cop, and I followed a second cop onto the farm. The trespasser was standing in front of the cop car and the cop was unloading a pistol he had taken off the trespasser. Then he came over and got the trespasser's rifle from MS's truck and unloaded that. Then the trespasser was cuffed and made to sit in the bushes.

We've got a bad tick problem so with the cop's permission, we got the guy up, sat him on the back of the truck in the shade, sprayed him with bug spray, and held a bottle of water so that he could drink. As it warmed we also got him uncuffed long enough to get his coat off of him. But since I was armed as usual, I never got within 20 feet of the guy when he was uncuffed so that there would be no chance of him getting to my gun. We tried to make him as comfortable as possible. I offered to call his wife for him but he said he didn't know the phone number and the cop had already confiscated his phone. He is a seemingly nice guy, 25 years old, claims to have a 2 year old kid.

A 3rd cop arrived with a tracking dog about an hour later. We had found a pool of blood just inside my fence with drops of blood every 20 - 30 feet going down the road. After an hour's search, the dog found a buckling dead about 200 feet off my farm on national forest land. The fawn had clearly been carried, dropped over my gate, then drug down a forest trail where it had been hidden in some bushes. This deer was so young it still had spots on its rump. It probably weighed 40 - 50 pounds live weight because it was about as tall but well thinner than my 65 lb Dalmatian. That's not much meat vs what all this is going to cost the hunter.

The cops verified my fences and no trespass signage more than meet the requirements for a legal fence so that they could charge the guy with felony trespass. So then they started compiling a list of charges:

1. felony trespass which is armed trespass on legally fenced property
2. hunting on federal land out of season (it is bow, crossbow, and muzzleloader season).
3. The fact that the guy held a hunting permit and hunted out of season is somehow another small crime.
4 & 5. killing an antlerless deer which is two crimes, once because he did it, and a another because he has violated his hunting permit
6. committing a gun crime while carrying concealed. The guy had a CCW permit which he will now lose, probably for life.
7 thru ? There were numerous misdemeanor crimes involving trespass, hunting permit, and gun violations on the Nat Forest land.

In all likelihood, according to the cops, since the guy has no prior felony convictions, the DA will plead down to misdemeanor trespass, the guy will lose both guns ($1000 - $1500 is my est), pay a few thousand in lawyer and court fees, and one year probation. The guy is in the bad position that his best defense against felony armed trespass is admitting to a series of smaller crimes and claiming he had done all those on federal land. 

In a prior trespassing thread I said there was a set of circumstances where I would respond to trespass armed. This fit the bill. Admittedly knowing that there had already been a shot fired made MS and myself being armed far more justified than just a simple trespass.

But here is the part I found interesting. All three cops told me their versions of what happened. One of them even said, "here's exactly the way it happened..." Being on site, interviewing the perp, seeing evidence, all 3 cops/wardens had a different version of the events. They even argued among themselves with one saying that the shot came from the east, one argued it came from the west, and the other cop uncommitted. With all the information they had, there was a lot of the story that was merely guess work. They all agreed to the list of charges, but not the specifics the when, where, how, etc. 

BTW - BK was unarmed, so I told BK he was foolish to approach an armed man committing a felony. I would not have done that. But this time, BK's bold move was probably the difference between an arrest vs the perp running off into the woods, never to be found.


----------



## MrSmith (Jun 24, 2009)

Wow! Glad you caught him. I hate poaching trespassing scum. 
For anyone that might feel bad for the criminal, I have a cousin that would fit this profile to a T. He's 20something, three daughters, and I'm sure he'd try the sob story route. He is an absolutely unapologetic trespassing poacher, that wastes most of what he shoots....until he gets caught, then I'm sure he'll just be trying to feed his poor kids. I stopped hunting with him long ago, and have been tempted to call the TIP line on him, but the family would never forgive me.


----------



## JoePa (Mar 14, 2013)

Well - let me say this - the trespasser committed a lot of game violations for which I'm glad that he got caught - but if I was the trespasser I would have just walked away when you guys showed up - headed back into the national forest - what you going to do - shoot me in the back - you were dealing with a 25 year old kid who had little experience in life and who was intimidated by you - be careful you may run into a trespasser who doesn't bend so easy and you may end up regretting it for a long time - what gives with some property owners - they get all bent out of shape when someone puts a foot on their precious dirt -


----------



## countryfied2011 (Jul 5, 2011)

> what gives with some property owners - they get all bent out of shape when someone puts a foot on their precious dirt -


What gives with some people--they dont respect other people's property and think that they can just step their precious foot on someone else's dirt...:shrug:

I'm sorry but if I have No Trespassing Signs posted all over the place...IT MEANS NO TRESPASSING..period the end...:nono:


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

JoePa said:


> Well - let me say this - the trespasser committed a lot of game violations for which I'm glad that he got caught - but if I was the trespasser I would have just walked away when you guys showed up - headed back into the national forest - what you going to do - shoot me in the back - you were dealing with a 25 year old kid who had little experience in life and who was intimidated by you - be careful you may run into a trespasser who doesn't bend so easy and you may end up regretting it for a long time - what gives with some property owners - they get all bent out of shape when someone puts a foot on their precious dirt -


Yes, we were surprised he didn't walk away also. 

I've let plenty of trespassers go over the last 4 years, especially before I had my farm fully fenced and they could legitimately be confused as to where public national forest ended and my land began. Had the guy not shot an illegal deer, he would be free today, not sitting in the local lock up.


----------



## sandsuncritters (Nov 18, 2011)

Well, I feel badly for you, Deke. The sight of that little fawn must have broken your heart. Good on you and your neighbors for catching the poacher.

JoePa, my family has put several generations of hard work, blood, sweat, and money into our property. We have worked diligently to maximize the native flora and fauna in addition to making this land beautifully productive to support family and community. Anyone who has not lifted a finger to assist in that process - or manages to come uninvited onto our land - should not expect a buffet table laid before him, and does not have right to even one blade of grass. Add the wanton killing of a fawn to that mix! Deke and his neighbors did what we would have, and have, done in that same situation. Florida law supports property owners' rights to defend their land against trespassers. 

In His Love
Mich


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

sandsun - I need to send you a PM but apparently you have that feature turned off. can you turn it on for and PM me?


----------



## sandsuncritters (Nov 18, 2011)

wait one - be right back


----------



## sandsuncritters (Nov 18, 2011)

Okay, I think you have a PM 

In His Love
Mich


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Over the last 4 years I've spent thousands of hours and too many dollars trying to create what I want that farm to be. I've had it certified as a tree farm and part of that process involved documenting the resident endangered plant and animal species, providing a home for them, improving the pastures with high protein and nutritious forages for quail, turkey, deer, etc, building thickets and snags to provide homes, created watering stations, and exterminated a few dozen feral hog which destroy the habitat for several of the endangered species. To protect the local deer and turkey as well as provide a future home for cattle, I've built over 5 miles of fences, parts of which have been cut and driven over. I've posted no trespass signs that have been torn down or riddled with buck shot if they were too high for the vandal to easily reach. I've had farm equipment and fencing supplies stolen. I've had recently planted pastures torn up by trespassing 4-wheeler ATVs creating race tracks on the soft soil. I've chased off poachers jack lighting deer in the middle of the night. I've picked up hundreds, maybe thousands of empty beer cans and other litter found near illegal deer/hog stands and throughout my woods. I've even caught a guy cutting down my trees and he claimed he was confused and thought he was on national forest land (it is a bigger crime to cut down federal trees than my trees). I've buried the remains of a meth lab hut that the police had bulldozed. And I've hauled off dozens of truck loads of dumped refrigerators, TVs, and other trash. I've wasted hours while sitting in wait after I called the cops to dispose of someone's pot farming operation and the cops had make sure I wasn't the pot farmer.

So yeah, I've gotten a bit protective of my land, my possessions, and the critters who call it home. I picked this farm because it has national forest on 3 sides. It is well hidden from the world, which is just what I wanted, but that makes it an attractive target for bad guys.

By planting forages such as soy, peas, vetch, indigo, milo, turnips, rape, kale, and others, I'm getting the land ready for cattle but it has the added benefit of fattening up the deer herd. I don't hunt. I'm doing this because it gives me great satisfaction to leave the place better than I found it. I admit it might be a stupid waste of time and money, but I enjoy it, and I'm not going to let someone steal even a little bit of it.


----------



## sandsuncritters (Nov 18, 2011)

This beautiful state needs all the help it can get to protect what's left of its natural beauty. 

If I don't log off now I'll get into another rant and hubby is frowning at me that it's lights out time LOL.

In His Love
Mich


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JoePa said:


> Well - let me say this - the trespasser committed a lot of game violations for which I'm glad that he got caught - but if I was the trespasser I would have just walked away when you guys showed up - headed back into the national forest - what you going to do - shoot me in the back - you were dealing with a 25 year old kid who had little experience in life and who was intimidated by you - be careful you may run into a trespasser who doesn't bend so easy and you may end up regretting it for a long time - what gives with some property owners - *they get all bent out of shape when someone puts a foot on their precious dirt *


I've wondered about that myself. :shrug:


----------



## MNBobcat (Feb 4, 2011)

DEKE01,

You're an (not allowed). You're seriously going to press charges and let the guy be charged with a felony? A misdemeanor is one thing. A felony can ruin this guy's life.

Seriously...people make mistakes. I urge you to think about doing the right thing and give this guy a chance to not ruin his life. You can request that in exchange for not pressing charges he has to work for X number of hours for you if you really feel extracting your pound of flesh is necessary.

Yes he shouldn't trespass. Yes he should have known better. But I implore you to give a lot of thought before you cause this person to deal with a felony over something so trivial.


----------



## countryfied2011 (Jul 5, 2011)

Really...^^^^ When you have fences and signs and you choose to ignore them, imho it is no different than breaking into someone's home. My property is my home. 

This man knew *exactly what he was doing* and had no regard for anyone else but what he wanted to do at the time. He just didn't step over the property line by mistake... he had to have climbed the fence. It was a conscious choice..our choices in life sometimes come with consequences and sometimes they follow us for the rest of our lives..

This is what is wrong with the mentality of society today....respect of others is lacking. Self-gratification is priority..We just give them a slap on the wrist and go on...:umno:


----------



## sandsuncritters (Nov 18, 2011)

Countryfied just said a mouthful and saved me a long rant reply.

Thanks, Countryfied! 

In His Love
Mich


----------



## My2butterflies (Jan 17, 2015)

And it's that slap on the wrist that makes it so easy for people to disrespect and mistreat each other. Harsh consequences should be made to be an example not just to the person who did wrong, but to others who might choose to do the same. 

For me I'd be just as upset if someone was shooting on my land. I have little kids and a big brown dog. In the excitement of taking down a deer I don't want any of them shot. I'd be all for any and all charges to be pressed. 

You have great friends/neighbors op!


----------



## MNBobcat (Feb 4, 2011)

You probably use hand grenades to kill mosquito's, too.

I hope you can live with yourself.




countryfied2011 said:


> Really...^^^^ When you have fences and signs and you choose to ignore them, imho it is no different than breaking into someone's home. My property is my home.
> 
> This man knew *exactly what he was doing* and had no regard for anyone else but what he wanted to do at the time. He just didn't step over the property line by mistake... he had to have climbed the fence. It was a conscious choice..our choices in life sometimes come with consequences and sometimes they follow us for the rest of our lives..
> 
> This is what is wrong with the mentality of society today....respect of others is lacking. Self-gratification is priority..We just give them a slap on the wrist and go on...:umno:


----------



## Rime (Nov 10, 2014)

I can sympathize. I do hunt, and found several people trespassing behind our house on opening day (less than 300 yards from our front door). I was surprised, as Maine has a long tradition of public access, but IF&W places a big emphasis on asking the landowner first. That's not applicable to some of the bigger landowners with hundreds of acres, but we've only got 40, and we're right on the road - it's pretty obvious. Yet none of these guys so much as gave us a ring the day before. 

I didn't press charges, but it's stunts like this that push landowners to eventually post their properties and call the authorities. It ruins it for all the respectful hunters who DO get landowner permission first. And it makes the entire hunting tradition look bad.


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

MNBobcat said:


> You probably use hand grenades to kill mosquito's, too.
> 
> I hope you can live with yourself.


I am sure he can..as could I. The criminal trespasser made a choice, as so many are fond of saying...now he can live with it. 

Trespass on my land, and you'll be charged with everything possible. It's posted above and beyond what the law requires. There is absolutely no mistaking that you are trespassing.

Trespassing armed? He's lucky he wasn't shot.


----------



## Bret (Oct 3, 2003)

I am glad that this did not turn into the disaster that happened in Wisconsin ( I think) some time ago, when a person that was confronted, began shooting and killing people. Things can escalate quickly beyond imagination. All the best for everyone.


----------



## JoePa (Mar 14, 2013)

Every one of you who is so inclined to punish this trespasser to the full extent of the law - I guess you never went over the speed limit or broke some other law and when you did you was sure glad that the book wasn't thrown at you - as stated when a person has a felony conviction on his record it will haunt him forever - how many of us have done stupid things when we were young - I know I have - a felony on his record can hinder him from getting jobs - carrying a gun - traveling to Canada - etc. - I don't condone what he did but then I'm not out to harm some kid just to feel like good

You ask what kind of society do we live in - well it seems like we don't forgive people anymore - I got mine and I worked hard for it - so don't you dare touch it - never mind the fact that a lot of others have given up there lives fighting for your right to own property in the first place - 

Yes I would have turned the guy over to the game wardens for shooting a deer out of season - but the armed trespassing charge is - over kill -


----------



## JoePa (Mar 14, 2013)

TraderBob said:


> I am sure he can..as could I. The criminal trespasser made a choice, as so many are fond of saying...now he can live with it.
> 
> Trespass on my land, and you'll be charged with everything possible. It's posted above and beyond what the law requires. There is absolutely no mistaking that you are trespassing.
> 
> Trespassing armed? He's lucky he wasn't shot.



Come on Bob - you would really kill someone cause they trespassed on your precious property - leave a widow and a little kid without a father - you got to be kidding - at least I hope so -


----------



## JoePa (Mar 14, 2013)

sandsuncritters said:


> Well, I feel badly for you, Deke. The sight of that little fawn must have broken your heart. Good on you and your neighbors for catching the poacher.
> 
> JoePa, my family has put several generations of hard work, blood, sweat, and money into our property. We have worked diligently to maximize the native flora and fauna in addition to making this land beautifully productive to support family and community. Anyone who has not lifted a finger to assist in that process - or manages to come uninvited onto our land - should not expect a buffet table laid before him, and does not have right to even one blade of grass. Add the wanton killing of a fawn to that mix! Deke and his neighbors did what we would have, and have, done in that same situation. Florida law supports property owners' rights to defend their land against trespassers.
> 
> ...



Florida also defends - stand your ground - so if someone shoots at me when I am trespassing they better not miss because I'm going to shoot back - I kinda think an anti hunting feeling is showing through - In His Love - I kinda wonder about that -


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

JoePa said:


> Come on Bob - you would really kill someone cause they trespassed on your precious property - leave a widow and a little kid without a father - you got to be kidding - at least I hope so -


If he was a threat? You bet. He put down his gun, so he wasn't a threat.
Too many meth cookers trespassing around here, many of them armed. I won't take a chance if they look like they are raising a weapon. 

I was in Wisconsin when a trespassing deer hunter shot 7 people on their own land. So yeah, if they are a threat, I will shoot.


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

JoePa said:


> Florida also defends - stand your ground - so if someone shoots at me when I am trespassing they better not miss because I'm going to shoot back - I kinda think an anti hunting feeling is showing through - In His Love - I kinda wonder about that -



Uh, that's not how it works...you have to be in a place where you have the legal right to be.

Florida law:

You have no claim to Stand your ground if: 

(a)&#8195;The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person.

or

(c)&#8195;The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity

Trespassing is a criminal activity.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

JoePa said:


> Florida also defends - stand your ground - so if someone shoots at me when I am trespassing they better not miss because I'm going to shoot back - I kinda think an anti hunting feeling is showing through - In His Love - I kinda wonder about that -


well, you better plan on killing every possible witness you can find, because Florida's stand your ground law isn't going to give you ANY defense. See TraderBob's remarks. He understands the law, you do not. 

When you shoot back as a trespasser, you'll be adding to your list crimes and making it far more likely you'll do jail time.


----------



## countryfied2011 (Jul 5, 2011)

MNBobcat said:


> You probably use hand grenades to kill mosquito's, too.
> 
> I hope you can live with yourself.


MNBobcat..Judging by your responses...I get the impression that you are one that tends to disregard fences and signs. 




> You ask what kind of society do we live in - well it seems like we don't forgive people anymore - I got mine and I worked hard for it - so don't you dare touch it - never mind the fact that a lot of others have given up there lives fighting for your right to own property in the first place -


I think the reason why people find it so hard to forgive now days because they are tired of being the victim of our society's political correctness/lack of child rearing. I was taught to stay off of other's property...

As far your statement of others given up their lives fighting for my freedom...My dad is a retired W02 from the Army...I know what it was like to have him in Korea and Vietnam... Just because someone fought for my freedom does not mean they have the right to do whatever they please with that freedom...


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

MNBobcat said:


> DEKE01,
> 
> You're an -------. You're seriously going to press charges and let the guy be charged with a felony? A misdemeanor is one thing. A felony can ruin this guy's life.
> 
> ...


That is not how it works, Once the Laws involved it is no longer your call.
The prosecutor will be the one making the decision.

I try my darnest to avoid involving the Law.
Not because I do not believe in Law, I just know how it works.
As well as how often times it does not work.

There are many here that proscribe to calling the Law for any and everything... 
Then you have those that, in one instance demand the Hang man :grumble:and in another don't bat an eye :goodjob:

I find it wrong to call the Law on a person unless you know they are guilty of something bad. Lot of laws I do not agree with so they are non issues with me. But when you take from someone,or Injure in some way that is just not right. 

Just as a Officer or Prosecuter has the right to discretion, I as a Citizen do as well.

If he gets a good lawyer and does not have a record, it will probably be plea dealed out for lesser charges.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

||Downhome|| said:


> If he gets a good lawyer and does not have a record, it will probably be plea dealed out for lesser charges.


Probably true and one of the reasons I'm not too worried about the guy. According to the cop, he has no prior felonies, and no warrants outstanding. If I don't prosecute, the state will prosecute for any of several crimes except for the felony trespass. And the cops expected the DA to allow the guy to plea down to non-felony charges, forfeit his guns, pay court costs and fines, and serve some probation but no jail time. But they did not know if a misdemeanor gun crime would cause him to lose his CCW or hunting privileges. 

As to not calling in the cops, I don't blame my neighbor one bit for making that call. When the call was made, there had been an obviously illegal gun shot and they had seen a man in camos trying to hide from them. 

The guy's story changed 3 times before he decided to shut up and not talk. First he denied shooting anything. Then when we found the pool of blood and tracks where a deer piled up, he admitted to shooting a deer and said it had run north. When we found blood on his jacket, he had no explanation and didn't know why it was there. Then when the fawn was found, with evidence he had carried the bucking on his back, thrown it over a gate, dragged it a couple of hundred feet, then hid it under some brush, he admitted to shooting it but said he was trying to get the doe. Then he was read his rights and he decided to shut up. 

The cops had been very patient with him right up until that point. They still treated him well and didn't badger him when he said he didn't want to talk. I've bashed certain cops in HT before when I thought they had acted badly. These 3 guys could not have been more professional and courteous to all involved. 

So it is very hard for me to shed any tears for this guy.


----------



## JoePa (Mar 14, 2013)

DEKE01 said:


> well, you better plan on killing every possible witness you can find, because Florida's stand your ground law isn't going to give you ANY defense. See TraderBob's remarks. He understands the law, you do not.
> 
> When you shoot back as a trespasser, you'll be adding to your list crimes and making it far more likely you'll do jail time.



Come on - give me a break - you saying that if someone is shooting at me I can't defend myself - shooting at someone for trespassing is a crime - you just can't shoot someone unless they are a deadly threat to you - trespassing is no such threat - I'll tell you something - if I'm trespassing on your property (by mistake) and you come along and tell me I'm trespassing I'm going to walk away - period - any thing that happens after that is going to be your fault - and one other point - I ain't going to put my gun down either - I'm taking it with me


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

JoePa said:


> Come on - give me a break - you saying that if someone is shooting at me I can't defend myself - shooting at someone for trespassing is a crime - you just can't shoot someone unless they are a deadly threat to you - trespassing is no such threat - I'll tell you something - if I'm trespassing on your property (by mistake) and you come along and tell me I'm trespassing I'm going to walk away - period - any thing that happens after that is going to be your fault - and one other point - I ain't going to put my gun down either - I'm taking it with me


I'm telling you that the stand your ground law specifically precludes its use as a legal defense if you are "engaged in a criminal activity." 

Think about it. If you break into my house and threaten to rape my great great grandmother, and I shoot at you in her defense, the stand your ground law would not protect you because you were engaged in a criminal activity. Felony trespass, which is armed trespass on legally fenced land, is a criminal activity. 

And you are correct, there is no justification to shoot at a trespasser merely because he is trespassing, even if he is armed. He would have to be endangering the life of an innocent person before lethal force would be justified. In some states, he could be engaged in a felony theft, like of an automobile and that is considered justification to use lethal force. I can't imagine circumstances that would get me to shoot to defend property, but I know it has been legally done in Texas.

You can't trespass on my property by accident. You have to climb over a gate or a fence. It is 100% fenced. But even if you did trespass, as you'll see in my msg #5, I would try to make nice and send you on your way with a warning. This case was about more than simple trespass.


----------



## JoePa (Mar 14, 2013)

Deke' - Let me just say this - I have trespassed at times in my long career as a deer hunter - there were times when I shot a deer and it ran into posted property - I followed the wounded deer so it didn't needlessly have to suffer and or to salvage the meat and not waste it - now you might say that I shouldn't have done that - well what harm did I do - the people who own the property don't live there and never even knew that I set foot on their property - there are times when trespassing is - in my mind - justified 

Bob - a hunter who was trespassing and walks away when confronted is in no way a threat to you - and you would be committing murder if you shot him -


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

JoePa said:


> Deke' - Let me just say this - I have trespassed at times in my long career as a deer hunter - there were times when I shot a deer and it ran into posted property - I followed the wounded deer so it didn't needlessly have to suffer and or to salvage the meat and not waste it - now you might say that I shouldn't have done that - well what harm did I do - the people who own the property don't live there and never even knew that I set foot on their property - there are times when trespassing is - in my mind - justified
> 
> Bob - a hunter who was trespassing and walks away when confronted is in no way a threat to you - and you would be committing murder if you shot him -


Sure, Joe. lots of people have trespassed on my farm with no harm to anyone or anything. I have repeatedly said I would not have bothered with the guy if he had done a mistaken trespass and not shot that fawn. If the circumstances were as you describe, and it was a legal kill in hunting season, no problem. The local hog hunters have had their dogs on my land repeatedly and all they got from me was a request to try to stay on the federal land.

But know this, if you came on my property hunting without my permission and tried to be Joe Lawyer and a jerk about it, like you had some right to do so and I better get over it, you would find out that the law is on my side.


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

JoePa said:


> Bob - a hunter who was trespassing and walks away when confronted is in no way a threat to you - and you would be committing murder if you shot him -


Obviously you can't read...I said the hunter was not a threat.


----------



## MichaelZ (May 21, 2013)

Bret said:


> I am glad that this did not turn into the disaster that happened in Wisconsin ( I think) some time ago, when a person that was confronted, began shooting and killing people. Things can escalate quickly beyond imagination. All the best for everyone.


Yeah, that was N. WI. During deer hunting season, a trespasser was confronted. Then he proceeded to kill 6 and wound 2 more. He was a former military sharp shooter. Events were disputed but the end result was a life sentence and lots of pain for many families.


----------



## MNBobcat (Feb 4, 2011)

countryfied2011 said:


> MNBobcat..Judging by your responses...I get the impression that you are one that tends to disregard fences and signs.


Not at all. Like I said, he could have arranged a deal to have the kid do some work for him in exchange for not pressing charges. There are any number of ways the kid could be taught a lesson. 

But anyone who would cause someone to get a felony for trespassing -- ought to beaten themselves. What a (not allowed).

Trespassing in my State is a misdemeanor as it should be.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

MNBobcat said:


> DEKE01,
> 
> You're an -------.


Hey Bobby, your message didn't come thru. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I'm an engineer? An accountant? 



MNBobcat said:


> Not at all. Like I said, he could have arranged a deal to have the kid do some work for him in exchange for not pressing charges. There are any number of ways the kid could be taught a lesson.
> 
> But anyone who would cause someone to get a felony for trespassing -- ought to beaten themselves. What a (creative profanity not allowed)


I have no desire to profit from this encounter and don't want to supervise some jerk doing work on my property when he has already shown he has no respect for my property. In fact, I told the game warden that I didn't want the deer because I didn't want to be seen as trying to benefit off the guy's stupidity. 

You might try reading all my comments in the thread before demonstrating that you can't reply civilly and with a comment that demonstrates understanding.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

What he was doing sure wasn't right. But all those violations sure seem to be a bit of piling on overkill. 
But what really bugs me is that it looks like this guy is going to lose $100,000's and the victim "(land owner) isn't going to recive any restitution.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Wow. That's just a crazy story. Glad everybody ended up safe and OK. I agree that guy should not have been there and doing that.

But, the list of charges, I think sounds crazy, and like it really could hurt him.

I read you said the guy didn't ignore your friends, and the cops said he didn't have a record of trouble.

My thoughts though make me wonder, why was he hunting and took the effort to get the small one, even if he meant to get the doe? I pray it wasn't because he was feeling desperate to try and go somewhere private and hunt food to feed his family cause they really needed the food.

I wasn't there, and I have no idea if that's a likely possibility. I remember my mom telling me that her mom's younger brothers used to go out hunting (illegally) when she was little to get meat and bring it home for their sister and her family (moms household) and the household with mom's grandpa. They needed the food to get by. I guess that's why that thought occurred to me. They didn't feel good about it, but they didn't have a lot of other good options.

If someone is in that position, I really think there should be a consequence, but hopefully not one with devastating effects.

I don't think you guys were wrong for taking action, but the way some of our laws are written and enforced sometimes seems like the punishments don't fit the crimes very well.

Glad you have good friends that are coordinated with you well to protect your place. Stay safe.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

I suggest everyone posting here go sit in the court room of their choice for 2 hours as I did. I did so because our next door neighbors were robbed and I wanted to see the people that did that because I would recognize them if they ever came up to our house looking for directions or attempting to purchase something.

I saw numerous individuals being arraigned. All ages, male and female, almost exclusively white. A couple were doing the arraignment in video from other jails because they had committed other crimes. 

It was an  . The only suspect that dressed in a suit was a young guy that was facing a whole lotta time for committing a burglary with a gun and the victims were in the home. A lot of the criminals were dressed in jeans and tee shirts, clean or dirty and most requested attorneys to be appointed for them. Because the jails are so full I bet most of the folks end up with probation. 

With the attitude of cut the law breaker some slack you say to him/her and all the other potential near do wells that I can also get away with this if I want to and just get a slap on the wrist. 

That guy shot a fawn with no respect to laws. Do you actually think he would worry about if property owner's child might be in line of firing when doing so?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Bobbyboy, I'm not going to repeat my words because you have either ignored them several times or are too wrapped up in your anger to understand them. You're just wrong.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mean while back at the ranch, I went running outside with my gun first thing in the morning for the third time in two weeks. First time it was a coyote after my chickens, second time was the trespasser, and today it turned out to be only two very nice hunting dogs. 

I fed and watered them, and penned them on the yard. By the time I got my phone, I could see a truck moving slowly far off down the road. I ran down to the road, waved him over and he came to get his dogs. 

As soon as he stepped foot on the property, I called the sheriff and had him and his dogs arrested for felony trespass.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

MNBobcat, I grew up in Minnesota and when we had people trespass we pressed charges and pushed for the maximum. Most landowners there still will. Ignoring a sign and fence is not a accident or mistake. He deserves everything he gets. If you trespass in Texas the fines will be greater than anything you do after and I promise I will press charges. If Minnesota has changed into a place of tree huggin liberal hippies I'm glad I left! If I walked into your house or garage Unwelcomed you would probably call the cops or kill me. With your mentality that would be wrong you should just ask me to leave and not call the cops or kill me because that would all ruin my life. Ignorance truly prevails. Let it happen once and it will continue. Punish to the full extent and you might actually save the boys life.


----------



## Alder (Aug 18, 2014)

I haven't read all the posts, but it sounds like a complete over-reaction to me. (Yes, I am a farm owner, and have had people trespass on my place during deer season). 

I'd have busted on over there in the truck, told the guy he was trespassing, and told him all neighbors around were paying attention. That if he did it again, he'd be turned in as I had his license number.

Then watch him get off my property and get on with my life.

I'd also very much hesitate giving neighbors the "authority" to shag people off my property or get involved in calling the authorities without my knowledge of the incident in question. I can control my actions, but not those of neighbors. I don't need any potential loose cannons getting involved in my business.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

DEKE01 said:


> mean while back at the ranch, I went running outside with my gun first thing in the morning for the third time in two weeks. First time it was a coyote after my chickens, second time was the trespasser, and today it turned out to be only two very nice hunting dogs.
> 
> I fed and watered them, and penned them on the yard. By the time I got my phone, I could see a truck moving slowly far off down the road. I ran down to the road, waved him over and he came to get his dogs.
> 
> As soon as he stepped foot on the property, I called the sheriff and had him and his dogs arrested for felony trespass.


So you waved him down so he could get his dogs let him on the property and had him arrested ?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Alder said:


> I haven't read all the posts, but it sounds like a complete over-reaction to me. (Yes, I am a farm owner, and have had people trespass on my place during deer season).
> 
> I'd have busted on over there in the truck, told the guy he was trespassing, and told him all neighbors around were paying attention. That if he did it again, he'd be turned in as I had his license number.
> 
> ...


The reason I give my neighbors authority to prosecute trespass is because I don't live on the property and can be away for as long as 6 weeks. I need someone to watch things for me. 

What you have missed is that we would not have gotten the trespassers license number without calling the police and if it had been only a trespass, he like all the others before him would have gone free with a warning. If he had legally shot a deer that ran onto my farm after the shot, he would have got a warning. 

When he climbed over a fence marked with a no trespass sign, set up to shoot on my lane, illegally shot a spotted fawn, carried it to my gate that he climbed over, right beside another no trespass sign, then came back and climbed over that same gate to hunt again on my farm again, it deserved more than just a warning, IMO. 

When I started carrying concealed, I learned a key lesson from an instructor. He said, if you ever break a law, make sure that you don't break two laws, because that's what will make you pay.


----------



## SouthGAMan (May 5, 2014)

In my opinion someone stupid enough and carrying so little for their fellow man's property needs to prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

Too bad you had the dogs arrested too..i'd have bought them from you.. any idea when they will get out of the pen?



DEKE01 said:


> mean while back at the ranch, I went running outside with my gun first thing in the morning for the third time in two weeks. First time it was a coyote after my chickens, second time was the trespasser, and today it turned out to be only two very nice hunting dogs.
> 
> I fed and watered them, and penned them on the yard. By the time I got my phone, I could see a truck moving slowly far off down the road. I ran down to the road, waved him over and he came to get his dogs.
> 
> As soon as he stepped foot on the property, I called the sheriff and had him and his dogs arrested for felony trespass.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

MichaelZ said:


> The OP has 3487 posts - generally that is not a troll as they would be long gone by now. I do believe the OP was genuine in his first post of this thread, in that he was not just fabricating something to stir the pot.


I was fine with the OP's first encounter but he waved/invited the dogs owner on to his land and had him arrested . Or maybe the OP didn't tell the law he invited the dogs owner.


----------



## MichaelZ (May 21, 2013)

TripleD said:


> I was fine with the OP's first encounter but he waved/invited the dogs owner on to his land and had him arrested . Or maybe the OP didn't tell the law he invited the dogs owner.


Yeah, I wonder about that too.


----------



## My2butterflies (Jan 17, 2015)

Wasn't the second story sarcastic do to all the backlash?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

MichaelZ said:


> The OP has 3487 posts - generally that is not a troll as they would be long gone by now. I do believe the OP was genuine in his first post of this thread, in that he was not just fabricating something to stir the pot.


of course you are correct. I got tired of bobcat and his vulgarity so I did something to entertain myself just to give him a bit more heartburn. I let a few others in on the joke. 

All I said was true to the best of my knowledge right up until I said I called the sheriff and had the guy and his dogs arrested. In truth I called the guy over, he retrieved his dogs, we chatted for 15 minutes, I learned a little about running dogs, and he and the dogs went away happy.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

TraderBob said:


> Too bad you had the dogs arrested too..i'd have bought them from you.. any idea when they will get out of the pen?


Hey, those dogs needed to be taught a lesson. :nanner:


Glad you got the joke


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Alder said:


> And so the true nature of the poster's character is revealed. Troll ain't the word for it.


thank you.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Profanity, creative profanity and personal insults are not allowed. Keep it civil or it gets locked down.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

Reading through this, especially the details of OP, there may be one important factor not mentioned. Dunno, it probably varies state by state, but in NC one time an attorney emphasized to me that a secondary law exists called "misuse of process." The gist of it is that it becomes a criminal offense to try to negotiate directly with a perp to try to extract any payment, or higher payment, from him for damages in turn for dropping criminal charges that have been, or might be, placed. So, once LE agents have decided to bring criminal charges (in this case for poaching, shooting the fawn, obvious trespass, any of those) it would likely get very dodgy for the OP to suggest, then more so for the game wardens to start discussing, any sort of good ol' boy neighborly agreement to extract work from the punk in exchange for not pressing charges, or not testifying, regarding the poaching part of it especially. With a bunch of witnesses standing around it wouldn't happen unless your state's laws are quite different there. Also, I suspect there actually aren't any damages involved in this situation where the landowner can say the trespasser should pay him X$ for outright losses. It sounds like once wardens saw a certain set of violations by the fellow he was toast; THREE wardens/cops plus two neighbors as well as the landowner were milling around, hardly a situation where any one warden/cop is going to risk initiating any sort of clemency discussion since any or all of the others could then put his butt in a sling for unprofessional favoritism or some such, especially if there were a sheriff there as well as game wardens. Even if it sounded like, or was interpreted as being, some sort of debate whether to drop charges was taking place, that might not have been the reality?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

DryHeat said:


> Reading through this, especially the details of OP, there may be one important factor not mentioned. Dunno, it probably varies state by state, but in NC one time an attorney emphasized to me that a secondary law exists called "misuse of process." The gist of it is that it becomes a criminal offense to try to negotiate directly with a perp to try to extract any payment, or higher payment, from him for damages in turn for dropping criminal charges that have been, or might be, placed. So, once LE agents have decided to bring criminal charges (in this case for poaching, shooting the fawn, obvious trespass, any of those) it would likely get very dodgy for the OP to suggest, then more so for the game wardens to start discussing, any sort of good ol' boy neighborly agreement to extract work from the punk in exchange for not pressing charges, or not testifying, regarding the poaching part of it especially. With a bunch of witnesses standing around it wouldn't happen unless your state's laws are quite different there. Also, I suspect there actually aren't any damages involved in this situation where the landowner can say the trespasser should pay him X$ for outright losses. It sounds like once wardens saw a certain set of violations by the fellow he was toast; THREE wardens/cops plus two neighbors as well as the landowner were milling around, hardly a situation where any one warden/cop is going to risk initiating any sort of clemency discussion since any or all of the others could then put his butt in a sling for unprofessional favoritism or some such, especially if there were a sheriff there as well as game wardens. Even if it sounded like, or was interpreted as being, some sort of debate whether to drop charges was taking place, that might not have been the reality?


I had no monetary losses other than the 4 hours I had to stand around waiting for the wardens to finish thier investigation. And I want nothing from the guy at all other than him staying off my land. 

The wardens did want to go easy on the guy until they found out he had lied to them 3 times and shot fawn. Then they started adding up 10 - 12 potential charges. But somewhere by the time they got to lock up, they decided to only go with 3 of the charges, at least according to the police report.


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

MNBobcat said:


> DEKE01,
> 
> You're an (not allowed). You're seriously going to press charges and let the guy be charged with a felony? A misdemeanor is one thing. A felony can ruin this guy's life.
> 
> ...


Really? So if someone decides they want to do what ever they wish on MY property, I should let them?

Gee, if a marijuana patch was (planted by trespassers) on MY land, I stand a good chance of it being seized (the property). If some moron decides to cook meth on MY land, I stand the possibility of having MY land seized AND *PAYING FOR THE CLEAN-UP COSTS* even though someone else did this.


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

JoePa said:


> Deke' - Let me just say this - I have trespassed at times in my long career as a deer hunter - there were times when I shot a deer and it ran into posted property - I followed the wounded deer so it didn't needlessly have to suffer and or to salvage the meat and not waste it - now you might say that I shouldn't have done that - well what harm did I do - the people who own the property don't live there and never even knew that I set foot on their property - there are times when trespassing is - in my mind - justified
> 
> Bob - a hunter who was trespassing and walks away when confronted is in no way a threat to you - and you would be committing murder if you shot him -


You did not think to seek permission to follow a wounded animal from the property owner beforehand?

Shame on you. If you hunt, you should be aware of NOT ONLY where your bullets or arrows may fly, but have *advanced permission* to look or trail on the property that is not mine.

Setting foot on someone else's property *without proper permission* is no different than stepping foot inside their house without being invited

My take, anyway......


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

Alder said:


> I haven't read all the posts, but it sounds like a complete over-reaction to me. (Yes, I am a farm owner, and have had people trespass on my place during deer season).
> 
> I'd have busted on over there in the truck, told the guy he was trespassing, and told him all neighbors around were paying attention. That if he did it again, he'd be turned in as I had his license number.
> 
> ...


If you cannot plan more than 3 weeks ahead of time then perhaps you should not be allowed.

I hunt on 3 acres (which we own) I get written permission from all my neighbors to track on their land *BEFORE* deer season starts I do not cross the property line. It is their burden to bear if there are a bunch of dead deer on their property


If they do not give permission, I


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Riverdale said:


> You did not think to seek permission to follow a wounded animal from the property owner beforehand?
> 
> Shame on you. If you hunt, you should be aware of NOT ONLY where your bullets or arrows may fly, but have *advanced permission* to look or trail on the property that is not mine.
> 
> ...


the legal system seems to view stepping foot on ones property somewhat different than ones home. They think nothing of searching ones property without a warrant... Your home is a little different, although they do kick a door in at times.


----------



## JoePa (Mar 14, 2013)

Riverdale said:


> You did not think to seek permission to follow a wounded animal from the property owner beforehand?
> 
> Shame on you. If you hunt, you should be aware of NOT ONLY where your bullets or arrows may fly, but have *advanced permission* to look or trail on the property that is not mine.
> 
> ...



River' - I don't even know who owns the posted land or where they live - so getting permission before hand is a waste of time - didn't expect to wound a deer and have it run unto the posted property - and as far as where my arrow flies - I always know where it flies - from a tree stand it is always down - finally - shame on you for thinking that stepping on posted land is the same as entering a person's home uninvited - you can't be serious - I hope not - :bash:


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

My first thought was the same as Gibbsgirl's that the only reason someone would do what this young man did would be a need for food. And really the only reason to get upset about it is because it wasn't left to get bigger antlers. Personally I would not have called the police. 

And I am now seriously grateful none of neighbors feel so rabidly protective of their land as some of what I have seen here. Pretty sad some of you (especially the ones who claim to be pro-life) put so little value on a human life that you would shoot someone just for setting foot on your property. It is utterly absurd to say your land is the equivalent of your house. I don't even treat my barn as the equivalent of my house.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

That poor young man had a long rifle, a hand gun and a vehicle. Much more than we did when we first got married. Who knows how much this poor individual spends weekly on cigarettes, alcohol or other dubious "necessities". 

If a landowner or their family was inadvertently shot because the trespasser didn't realize legitimate people were on the premises would you say "oh, it was just a terrible accident"? Would it be just an unfortunate accident if it was someone YOU loved?

If people are hungry, almost every community has food pantries. It is also good to maintain friendships and family ties. In times of trouble, friends and family can be an important support. But, the one thing is, if you take help from family and friends you are obligated to help them in return. That part is not so attractive to certain individuals.

I'm sure a lot of the people here grow some or all of their vegetables to help ease the food cost. There are community garden plots in a lot of cities. 

I've got a pot of pinto beans cooking right now. Cheap, tasty and filling. Before condoning a trespasser with a gun going on someone's property I would hope folks would suggest legal and ethical ways to fill an empty stomach...


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> My first thought was the same as Gibbsgirl's that the only reason someone would do what this young man did would be a need for food. And really the only reason to get upset about it is because it wasn't left to get bigger antlers. Personally I would not have called the police.
> 
> And I am now seriously grateful none of neighbors feel so rabidly protective of their land as some of what I have seen here. Pretty sad some of you (especially the ones who claim to be pro-life) put so little value on a human life that you would shoot someone just for setting foot on your property. It is utterly absurd to say your land is the equivalent of your house. I don't even treat my barn as the equivalent of my house.



Our trespass laws are a bit different than in the US but I'm pretty militant. 

Gates left open mean I'm liable if livestock escape and someone gets hurt and I wasn't too fond of the idea of folks shooting in the direction of my house, my livestock or the kids when they were out riding.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

light rain said:


> That poor young man had a long rifle, a hand gun and a vehicle. Much more than we did when we first got married. *Who knows how much this poor individual spends weekly on cigarettes, alcohol or other dubious "necessities". *
> 
> If a landowner or their family was inadvertently shot because the trespasser didn't realize legitimate people were on the premises would you say "oh, it was just a terrible accident"? Would it be just an unfortunate accident if it was someone YOU loved?
> 
> ...


I would just like to point out the fact that tobacco and alcohol are not "dubious necessities" in my household... They are both top of the list necessities! That being said, carry on.


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

I'd like to point out YH Murphy was neither a pessimist nor optimist, but a realist!


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

And "realistically" speaking, if you don't have money for food you shore don't have money for booze or cigarettes... :hrm:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I suspect everyone has their own set of priorities. Mine include a warm place to sleep, plenty to eat and drink, and a good smoke after I eat. Those things count and is why I spend the time and effort to provide them for myself in a mostly legal manner.


----------



## Bret (Oct 3, 2003)

Removed by Bret for attempted humor in the wrong place and wrong time. I respect that this is a very serious subject.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

light rain said:


> That poor young man had a long rifle, a hand gun and a vehicle. Much more than we did when we first got married. Who knows how much this poor individual spends weekly on cigarettes, alcohol or other dubious "necessities".
> 
> If a landowner or their family was inadvertently shot because the trespasser didn't realize legitimate people were on the premises would you say "oh, it was just a terrible accident"? Would it be just an unfortunate accident if it was someone YOU loved?
> 
> ...


Seriously? Because you know people can't have all that stuff and then oh say lose their jobs? Have a terrible financial hit from medical bills or something? And how exactly did you make the leap to alcohol and cigarettes?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

wr said:


> Our trespass laws are a bit different than in the US but I'm pretty militant.
> 
> Gates left open mean I'm liable if livestock escape and someone gets hurt and I wasn't too fond of the idea of folks shooting in the direction of my house, my livestock or the kids when they were out riding.


So you would really shoot someone if you saw them in your pasture? Because I wouldn't.


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> So you would really shoot someone if you saw them in your pasture? Because I wouldn't.


Just certain people


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> the legal system seems to view stepping foot on ones property somewhat different than ones home. They think nothing of searching ones property without a warrant... Your home is a little different, although they do kick a door in at times.





Patchouli said:


> My first thought was the same as Gibbsgirl's that the only reason someone would do what this young man did would be a need for food. And really the only reason to get upset about it is because it wasn't left to get bigger antlers. Personally I would not have called the police.
> 
> And I am now seriously grateful none of neighbors feel so rabidly protective of their land as some of what I have seen here. Pretty sad some of you (especially the ones who claim to be pro-life) put so little value on a human life that you would shoot someone just for setting foot on your property. It is utterly absurd to say your land is the equivalent of your house. I don't even treat my barn as the equivalent of my house.





Here's the problem when people don't understand what they read.
Go read the 4th amendment again.
Find any distinction between "house" and other "property". It even lists your personal papers as having the same protection.
I personally would feel more of a threat from a foot inside my door than one on my driveway, but the area of protection is deemed as equal.
And as far as the argument regarding "pro-life", was the deer not a living thing as well?




*The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[2]*


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

farmrbrown said:


> was the deer not a living thing as well?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your misapplying this. 

The constitution governs the government.

Not the people.

You and I are not not bound by it.

The Bill of rights does not grant us anything but list's a few of the most Important rights your born with in order to provide protection of them from the government.

As far as the Deer, well most people put themselfs above animals.
Even a well beloved pet would only in a court of law be subject to actual replacement cost. 
Though I think we all know a pet is has far more then a dollar amount.
But in the end its an animal.

Just look at the value we place on humans... sad really.

But seems to be what it is.


(Perhaps I mistook your example.)


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

Patchouli, when I do my grocery shopping and I see with my own eyes what folks are buying it is distressing. A lot of the times the kids are dirty and not dressed in clean clothes and warm enough for winter. Mom, Dad, Boyfriend, Grandma, Grandpa are buying high priced junk food, alcohol etc and the kids look and act miserable. I feel sorry for the kids but not so much for the adults.

And about knowing about hits from losing jobs and medical bills I've had a thorough education.  So don't assume I am completely in the dark. Losing a job or having a high medical bills does not give a person a right to steal or trespass. If you can assume that this poor lad was out of work (thru no fault of his own) and was indebted with astronomical medical bills I can assume that he preferred taking other folks' property and spending any money he did have for cigarettes, alcohol and firearms. :heh: 

DEKE01, you saw the firearms. What would they have sold for? How much food would that have bought until the poor soul found a job? Pinto beans at WM were under $15.00 for 20 lbs. a few weeks ago... He and his possible family might have been gas-propelled but their stomachs would be full...

BTW, their is nothing morally wrong with the cigarettes, alcohol and firearms as long as a person has legal $$$ to pay for them. I was a smoker over thirty yrs. ago. DH helped me quit. There is no way I/we could afford 2 packs a week now... So my answer in short is yes, seriously.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> So you would really shoot someone if you saw them in your pasture? Because I wouldn't.


I wouldn't be inclined to shoot someone but I did threaten to shoot back several times one summer when a neighbor allowed Rambo's twin brother to hunt gophers. Apparently after investing in gear, knives, guns, camo gear and truck seats, he couldn't afford a hunter safety course.

I don't have much use for trespassers because they don't always close gates so I've had to chase livestock off a major highway while fearing that someone would be hurt and I was a bit more than hostile when Rambo's twin brother killed a pretty dun foal.


----------



## countryfied2011 (Jul 5, 2011)

I am just curious how people would have felt if that fawn had been one of your animals or yourself. I am always out and about on foot through our 17 acres(which some of it is woods). Should I announce to the county that I am out walking my property because some fool wants to trespass and hunt...Maybe I should plaster it all over the internet/FB that I am going walking in the woods. :surrender: I should feel safe regardless if it is my property or my house and yes my land is as important to me as my house is. If I wanted every Tom, Doug, and Harry walking on it, I wouldnt have spent the thousands of dollars to fence it off.. 

I would help out anyone I could in need of food ect...I do it all the time...just ask, but dont steal from me and trespassing to me is the same as stealing


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

Countryfied, DH approves of "Doug" as precautionary... 

He also requests your recommendation on breeds of rabbits for meat. :Bawling:

The fact that someone walking the property that you pay the taxes on and upkeep in many different ways without your permission stinks to me. It is also dangerous. 

A lot of people are very trusting of strangers as long as they haven't experienced negative actions in the past. Let one of their animals, children or grandchildren get injured or worse and oh my, the light dawns. I say don't let it go that far. Prosecute the trespasser. 

Notice, P. I did not say "shoot". But, I have a old 12 gauge beside my bed if we would have any uninvited "company" within our house...


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

wr said:


> I wouldn't be inclined to shoot someone but I did threaten to shoot back several times one summer when a neighbor allowed Rambo's twin brother to hunt gophers. Apparently after investing in gear, knives, guns, camo gear and truck seats, he couldn't afford a hunter safety course.
> 
> I don't have much use for trespassers because they don't always close gates so I've had to chase livestock off a major highway while fearing that someone would be hurt and I was a bit more than hostile when Rambo's twin brother killed a pretty dun foal.


Oh I am completely with you if they shoot your livestock. I still wouldn't kill them but I would keep them there and report them to get reimbursed for my lost animal. 

Rambo hunting gophers is a heck of a word picture.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> Oh I am completely with you if they shoot your livestock. I still wouldn't kill them but I would keep them there and report them to get reimbursed for my lost animal.
> 
> *Rambo hunting gophers is a heck of a word picture. *


 They gots some mean gophers up north apparently!


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

||Downhome|| said:


> Your misapplying this.
> 
> The constitution governs the government.
> 
> ...



I realize the Constitution restricts only the government, because a gov't has much greater power than a single individual.
My response was more towards some who thought it only protected your house and not your other property equally.
The responsibility to protect ourselves against individuals falls to us, but it is a protected right outlined in all of the Constitution.
I do feel differently towards animals than most, pets in particular.
That's why I warned the sheriff's dept. awhile back when there was a rash of shooting dogs in people's yard, several of them were fenced in or chained.
If they intend to do that to mine, best start digging graves.
That's all I got to say about that.


----------



## COWS (Dec 23, 2012)

Be careful about these disputes over livestock and pets. Google "murders in Edgefield count, SC, 1940." 8 people lost their lives over a dead calf, including 3 executed, one of which was a woman. Another man was reprieved at the last moment because he turned states evidence. His wife was my first grade teacher and I remember thinking that she sure looked sad. There were other underlying issues besides the calf. 

COWS


----------



## countryfied2011 (Jul 5, 2011)

I dont plan on shooting anyone for trespassing unless they pose a threat by pulling a weapon or trying to harm me...otoh I have no problem pressing charges for trespassing... reason being we pretty much take care of each other around here meaning if one needs to get on the property to recover an animal or work on the fence..we call each other and ASK. So anyone that is not a neighbor is trespassing in my book. 



> Countryfied, DH approves of "Doug" as precautionary...
> 
> He also requests your recommendation on breeds of rabbits for meat.


LR...I thought i better be careful on my use of words...haha. I raise NZ and Cali...and do very well with them...never tried anything else. I rarely have any left for DH and I...to put in the freeze. Actually I am going to be short two for one of my customers this breeding season. If need be, send me a pm if you have any questions, so we dont get in trouble for going down a "bunny trail"...


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

COWS said:


> Be careful about these disputes over livestock and pets. Google "murders in Edgefield count, SC, 1940." 8 people lost their lives over a dead calf, including 3 executed, one of which was a woman. Another man was reprieved at the last moment because he turned states evidence. His wife was my first grade teacher and I remember thinking that she sure looked sad. There were other underlying issues besides the calf.
> 
> COWS


I couldn't resist a peek at that story. "A few underlying issues" is quite the understatement!
LOL

I think it's safe to say that when people respect boundaries, most conflict can be avoided.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Seriously? Because you know people can't have all that stuff and then oh say lose their jobs? Have a terrible financial hit from medical bills or something? And how exactly did you make the leap to alcohol and cigarettes?


Possibly the same way some made the leap to "pro-life"?


----------



## JoePa (Mar 14, 2013)

Everybody is stating what they would do if they caught a trespasser on their property - most times things don't work the way they think - first point - if I'm trespassing and the owner catches me - I walk away - what's he going to do - second point - the owner has no way of knowing who I am so he can't file charges against someone he doesn't even know who it is - calling the cops is a waste of time because I'm long gone if and when the cops come - most likely they won't even come cause they know that the trespasser is long gone - so what can a property owner do - well he can keep patrolling his posted property and chase any trespassers - he can hope that by doing that he will keep most trespassers from coming back - and he can not get too bent out of shape if a hunter walks across his place and doesn't do any damage to his property - yes owning land has it's problems for sure


----------



## countryfied2011 (Jul 5, 2011)

> I'm trespassing and the owner catches me - I walk away - what's he going to do


Guess you have spent much time in the hollows of TN....folks have been know to come up missing and never return. "Just sayin" 

I feel pretty fortunate for where I live...there seems to be a mutual respect here since most of the neighbors are related or grew up here. So it there was a trespasser he wouldnt be from this area and who knows how the neighborhood would deal with them.


----------



## FLAndy (Nov 6, 2015)

Personally, i agree with the wy the OP handled things. The suggestion that the landowner be gracious and sort of turn the other cheek sounds good, but would the trespasser do the same if he tripped and broke his leg? I have had 3 uncomfortable instances with trespassers.
- My sister was walking her dog on my property when an armed man started yelling at her saying she was scaring off the deer. He was inside my FENCED property lines by 100yds and had setup a tree stand. I immediately rode my ATV back there and told him to go now. He did and I went back later and confiscated the tree stand.
-I was working on fencing one fall afternoon when I heard something smack the house really hard. a couple of seconds later the next round went wizzing overhead. I, again, ran back on the ATV and found 3 kids (12-15yo) shooting at squirrels with a .22 rifle silecnced with a 2 liter bottle. I told them to leave and never come back.
- The following month the same kids were "hunting" via flashlight and camping on my FENCED and POSTED land. they burnt over 2 acres of oak hammock before the fire department put out the fire. Since I wasnt there and the gate was locked the fire department ran over the pipe gate to get acess. Nobody offered to reimburse me for lost resources or a new gate.
you tenbd to have a different and less forgiving outlook towards trespassers when your being shot at and land is being burned - know what I mean.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

COWS said:


> Be careful about these disputes over livestock and pets. Google "murders in Edgefield count, SC, 1940." 8 people lost their lives over a dead calf, including 3 executed, one of which was a woman. Another man was reprieved at the last moment because he turned states evidence. His wife was my first grade teacher and I remember thinking that she sure looked sad. There were other underlying issues besides the calf.
> 
> COWS


The Hatfield's and McCoys fought over a pig.....and other stuff. . .for decades


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

I think the OP did right too. I just question the application of the law and Justice of it, but I do that for a lot of things.

I hope it doesn't turn the guys life upside down, cause that punishment I don't think would fit the crime. And, I do pray that he wasn't out there because of some underlying issue needing food that might have caused him to want to be out there hunting. At least all the people involved were not hurt.


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

gibbsgirl said:


> The Hatfield's and McCoys fought over a pig.....and other stuff. . .for decades



it was far more then a pig.

I have a bit of understanding as well!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

||Downhome|| said:


> it was far more then a pig.
> 
> I have a bit of understanding as well!


Yeppers, the pig wasn't the big deal, a chicken was stolen as well, but nobody ever brings that up.


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yeppers, the pig wasn't the big deal, a chicken was stolen as well, but nobody ever brings that up.


One of my Family's lines was married into both the Hatfield and McCoy families.
Was not a direct line but not to far off it.

Anywho, I found the account in the Paduca sun, George had 10 boys, the youngest was bush wacked by a suitor to Devil ans daughter, the Brothers in turn Bush wacked him. I don't think any more came of that. 

But ya it was more then a pig and more then a chicken, 

For your leisure sir.
http://genealogytrails.com/wva/hatfield_and_mccoy_feud.html

By and by my family hails from Logan county. Dad was born there, still have close Kin there.


----------



## COWS (Dec 23, 2012)

Follow the money. Devil Anse was trying to get enough property to leave to his children so they could support themselves. Also there was underlying resentments left over from the Civil War, though the Hatfields don't seem to have realized it at the time. 

In the SC case the family that did the murder for hire thing was wanting to get the man in the other family to get off his property so it could be bought. The murder for hire family had at one time somewhere around 1,000 acres, which was all sold for lawyer's fees. That is another issue to look out for in dealing with trespassers. It's best to arrange things so that the trespasser has to worry about lawyers, not the land owner.

COWS


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

COWS said:


> It's best to arrange things so that the trespasser has to worry about lawyers, not the land owner.
> 
> COWS


That's funny.
I think just the opposite.
:croc:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> That's funny.
> I think just the opposite.
> :croc:


I am thinking cows is referring to a nonviolent conclusion to the problem. letting the law take care of it instead of a one on one confrontation with a bloody ending.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am thinking cows is referring to a nonviolent conclusion to the problem. letting the law take care of it instead of a one on one confrontation with a bloody ending.


Maybe so.
I always liked the sign, "Forget the dog, Beware of the OWNER!"
LOL


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> Maybe so.
> I always liked the sign, "Forget the dog, Beware of the OWNER!"
> LOL


Me too, the most harm my dog would do is maybe lick them to death! Me? If they are the type to push an old man into a corner.... My wrestling days are over, leaving me very limited options. If I can't talk them out of their foolishness then I can lay down and take it, or be forced to disable them with a couple rounds in their feet or legs. Just have to wait and see what mood I might be in on that most unlikely day. In my first 64 years I haven't been faced with that choice.... Hoping I will not have to in my next 64.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

update:

The office of the state prosecutor called today. My guess is the state DA takes care of this since shooting the deer is a state crime, but I'm out of my league on that sort of stuff. We scheduled a phone call Friday to discuss the situation and I plan to say I want the trespasser prosecuted but ask for leniency in sentencing. But that could change either way depending on how this foncon goes. More to follow...


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

update 2

after verifying with the state prosecutor, the trespasser has no priors, I told him I wanted the guy prosecuted, but we needed to find some sort of punishment that wouldn't ruin the guy's life with a felony conviction. 

The prosecutor was happy with that and said he is planning on not even pursuing the felony trespass charge, but holding in aside for a couple of years. If the guy stays clean, the charge will be dropped. In exchange, the trespasser has to agree to give up his guns and hunting permits, there will be some fine for killing the fawn, no jail time, no felony conviction. That sounds fair to me.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

How long does he have to give up his guns and hunting permits?


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

I poached a deer and was fined $500 and loss of hunting and fishing for 3 years and kept my guns. Anything over that is not fair, in my opinion.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

oneraddad said:


> I poached a deer and was fined $500 and loss of hunting and fishing for 3 years and kept my guns. Anything over that is not fair, in my opinion.


That seems more fair to me. I don't see taking away his guns over it.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Back in the 70's we used to travel each fall 400 miles north of Winnipeg to hunt ducks and catch fish. The bag limits were strictly enforced. One day members of our group watched as another boat came to the landing at the end of the day. As it tied to the dock a wildlife officer approached them and asked to see what they'd shot. They showed him the proper number of birds. He asked if that was all. They said yes. He then waved to vehicle sitting in the parking lot and a couple more officers came over. They had been watching these guys all day. They went through the boat and started pulling birds out from every nook and cranny. The result was heavy fines, the confiscation of everything they weren't wearing, including vehicle, trailer, boat and guns, loss of the ability to enter Canada for five years and permanent loss of any hunting or fishing privileges.

The group I was with had no sympathy. Unless one is starving and that animal in front of you will be your only source of food there is no excuse for poaching.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> That seems more fair to me. I don't see taking away his guns over it.


The guy committed about a dozen crimes involving guns, all of them intentional, and you don't think he should have to give up his guns? :spinsmiley: And losing his guns and hunting privileges is what he would face regardless of the trespass; that is the price for shooting an illegal deer at an illegal time with an illegal gun. 

Many of his crimes, though minor, will be just the sort of thing gun grabbers use to show stats that concealed carriers commit crimes. I've seen it in HT and elsewhere. 

As a CCW myself, I feel it is my duty to others to protect our second amendment rights by carrying responsibly and with great respect for the law.


----------



## Joshie (Dec 8, 2008)

MNBobcat said:


> Not at all. Like I said, he could have arranged a deal to have the kid do some work for him in exchange for not pressing charges. There are any number of ways the kid could be taught a lesson.
> 
> But anyone who would cause someone to get a felony for trespassing -- ought to beaten themselves. What a (not allowed).
> 
> Trespassing in my State is a misdemeanor as it should be.


The trespasser is the one who caused himself to be charged. The police and prosecutors are the ones who decide what charges are filed. 

The homeowner's friends are the ones who called the cops. They likely had good reason to be concerned. We're out in the boonies but none of our neighbors have as much land as OP. We hear gunfire fairly regularly so wouldn't bat an eye. Something hinkey had to be obviously be wrong for _two neighbors_ to call the cops. BTW, swearing hurts your stance.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

DEKE01 said:


> The guy committed about a dozen crimes involving guns, all of them intentional, and you don't think he should have to give up his guns? :spinsmiley: And losing his guns and hunting privileges is what he would face regardless of the trespass; that is the price for shooting an illegal deer at an illegal time with an illegal gun.
> 
> Many of his crimes, though minor, will be just the sort of thing gun grabbers use to show stats that concealed carriers commit crimes. I've seen it in HT and elsewhere.
> 
> As a CCW myself, I feel it is my duty to others to protect our second amendment rights by carrying responsibly and with great respect for the law.


As fond as people are of accusing me of being a gun rights hater I am not. I only think your guns should be taken if you threaten another human being with them either purposely or through negligence. He shouldn't lose his right to protect himself in his own home just because he shot a deer out of season.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> He shouldn't lose his right to protect himself in his own home just because he shot a deer out of season.


And of course, he did not. A dozen crimes.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> And of course, he did not. A dozen crimes.


All of which were based on illegal laws if one considers the second amendment. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (Please note the period after the word infringed, there are no exceptions listed.) His only real crime was taking a deer out of season.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Joshie said:


> The trespasser is the one who caused himself to be charged. The police and prosecutors are the ones who decide what charges are filed.
> 
> The homeowner's friends are the ones who called the cops. They likely had good reason to be concerned. We're out in the boonies but none of our neighbors have as much land as OP. We hear gunfire fairly regularly so wouldn't bat an eye. Something hinkey had to be obviously be wrong for _two neighbors_ to call the cops.* BTW, swearing hurts your stance.*


swearing also doesn't help ones stance with the mods. Neither does "not quite" swearing.... Intent counts too.


----------



## JoePa (Mar 14, 2013)

I kid was caught shooting an illegal deer - the warden was notified and now it up to him to decide what to do as far as this poaching incident is concerned - the OP should have backed off and let things happen from that point - the OP didn't have to get involved after that - he could have forgotten about any trespassing charges - that is if he is a regular guy


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

DEKE01 said:


> And of course, he did not. A dozen crimes.


All related to shooting the deer. None of them involving harm or threatened harm to a human being.


----------



## SouthGAMan (May 5, 2014)

Patchouli said:


> All related to shooting the deer. None of them involving harm or threatened harm to a human being.



Personally I have a huge problem with anyone who decides that any laws don't pertain to them. Where do they draw the line? Which laws do they get to decide to keep or not keep? Sadly in MOST cases from my experience those who have committed crimes where they violated the property lines, game laws, or directly stole from people in the past will likely do so again when they feel that their is little likelihood or repercussions for them getting caught. If they feel however the punishment is harder than their benefits for creating the crime then they will most likely refrain from thinking the risks are worth it. Far too small a number of people are actually punished for game laws or trespassing. In my opinion stick it to them if it is proven they made deliberate decisions to break the law. I have ZERO pity for them.

Now with that said...I'm not perfect and have made mistakes in my past but I knew full well what the consequences might be and weighed the risks anyway. I still have no pity for those who choose to do wrong.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

JoePa said:


> I kid was caught shooting an illegal deer - the warden was notified and now it up to him to decide what to do as far as this poaching incident is concerned - the OP should have backed off and let things happen from that point - the OP didn't have to get involved after that - he could have forgotten about any trespassing charges - that is if he is a regular guy


When I took a shower today, I double checked just for you. Yes, I am a guy. As to being regular, yep to that as well. I eat lots of high fiber fruit so I have no issues in that regard. Thanks for asking. 

Now, if you will actually read my post called update 2, you'll see that I've done exactly what you say.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> All of which were based on illegal laws if one considers the second amendment. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (Please note the period after the word infringed, there are no exceptions listed.) His only real crime was taking a deer out of season.


I've corrected you before, but it apparently didn't sink in. I'll not bother to get into another constitutional debate you don't seem to understand. I'm a big proponent of 2A and zero infringements for law abiding citizens. If we accept your interpretation, those who are imprisoned could rightfully keep and bear arms. 

The guy's constitutional rights have not been infringed. If I understand the DA correctly, he is losing the guns he had in his possession when he committed a crime. He is not losing his rights to keep and bear, he is voluntarily giving up his rights to hunt in exchange for no prosecution on the felony charge.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> As fond as people are of accusing me of being a gun rights hater I am not. I only think your guns should be taken if you threaten another human being with them either purposely or through negligence. He shouldn't lose his right to protect himself in his own home just because he shot a deer out of season.


So if I rob a bank while armed but when no one is present, it shouldn't impact my gun rights? 

I don't think he has lost his gun rights. That is your assumption. I was told he would have to give up the two guns in his possession when he committed the crimes.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Something to consider about someone trespassing and poaching. This time no one was hurt, but that's no guarantee. If your on someone else's property and they don't know it, what happens if they are with a livestock animal like a horse, goat or calf and this "hunter" takes a shot? The owner isn't wearing orange, it isn't hunting season and all of a sudden ii isn't the death of a deer.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> I've corrected you before, but it apparently didn't sink in. I'll not bother to get into another constitutional debate you don't seem to understand. I'm a big proponent of 2A and zero infringements for law abiding citizens. If we accept your interpretation, those who are imprisoned could rightfully keep and bear arms.
> 
> The guy's constitutional rights have not been infringed. If I understand the DA correctly, he is losing the guns he had in his possession when he committed a crime. He is not losing his rights to keep and bear, he is voluntarily giving up his rights to hunt in exchange for no prosecution on the felony charge.


You have expressed your somewhat interesting interpretation of our constitution before, that I will agree. Your added words "for law abiding citizens" doesn't seem to be found anywhere in my copy, not in the second amendment nor anywhere else in said document. As to those imprisoned.... They are living in a "gun free" zone, sorry, but anyone has the right to refuse others the right to carry on their property, jails and prisons are included in this. Those convicted of crimes should still be entitled to own and bear any weapon they so choose, as long as they leave them at home during their stay in a gun free zone.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

DEKE01 said:


> I've corrected you before, but it apparently didn't sink in. I'll not bother to get into another constitutional debate you don't seem to understand. I'm a big proponent of 2A and zero infringements for law abiding citizens. If we accept your interpretation, those who are imprisoned could rightfully keep and bear arms.
> 
> The guy's constitutional rights have not been infringed. If I understand the DA correctly, he is losing the guns he had in his possession when he committed a crime. He is not losing his rights to keep and bear, he is voluntarily giving up his rights to hunt in exchange for no prosecution on the felony charge.



If they just take the gun he used in the crime, that seems fair


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

DEKE01 said:


> So if I rob a bank while armed but when no one is present, it shouldn't impact my gun rights?
> 
> I don't think he has lost his gun rights. That is your assumption. I was told he would have to give up the two guns in his possession when he committed the crimes.


Armed robbery should absolutely lead to you losing your guns. You threatened another person with bodily harm. 

I thought he lost all of his guns permanently. If it is just the ones involved in the poaching then I can see that.


----------



## JoePa (Mar 14, 2013)

Speaking of guns - with all these crazy racial terrorists running around shooting people you will find more and more people arming themselves when they go somewhere - I read where in Ohio school teachers are starting to arm themselves - people realize that these gun free zones are a joke - when some nut starts shooting it takes too long for the cops to show up and in the meantime more victims are being shot - 

Just think of what would have happened if there were some armed citizens in that theater over in Paris - I'm sure there would have been a lot less victims - the terrorists kept reloading their guns and there was no one around to stop them - if you don't have a gun to protect yourself you better get one and learn how to use it - remember the cops are seldom around to stop a crime - they come after it has been committed -


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You have expressed your somewhat interesting interpretation of our constitution before, that I will agree. Your added words "for law abiding citizens" doesn't seem to be found anywhere in my copy, not in the second amendment nor anywhere else in said document. As to those imprisoned.... They are living in a "gun free" zone, sorry, but anyone has the right to refuse others the right to carry on their property, jails and prisons are included in this. Those convicted of crimes should still be entitled to own and bear any weapon they so choose, as long as they leave them at home during their stay in a gun free zone.


LOL now that was quite an argument. Too bad you can't see that you've contradicted yourself. 

How did those gun free zones get established? By law or govt regulation. So in arguing for gun free zones you are arguing for the gov't to infringe/limit our rights to keep and bear arms. How do you constitutionally justify gun free jails when citizens are disarmed but the gov't is not? Even a visitor can't bring a gun into a prison. So you might want to give the topic a bit more thought and figure out if you are for or against an elementary school level interpretation of 2A. 

As I have explained before, 2A is a critical right described as a PART of the constitution. You have to read and pay attention to the whole document. I'll leave it as an exercise for you to read the whole constitution and find the parts where the gov't can take away your rights to life, liberty, and other rights. 

If you want to limit your argument to the gov't has no right to take away your 2A rights after you have served a felony sentence, then that is a much more nuanced issue open to debate.


----------



## grandma12703 (Jan 13, 2011)

Growing up I was a rancher/farmer's step-daughter. Many times we found folks hunting/fishing without permission. My step-father would get out and ask what they were doing? He would ask if they knew they were on private property? He would then proceed to tell them they needed to leave and that if they needed to feed their family they needed to call this number (our number) and ask permission. If no one else was hunting at the time they would probably be allowed. He would also proceed to tell them that the wardens are watching this area closely and if they would have seen them it would have been much worse. (I really don't know if there was any truth to that). We would never see them again. My husband and I do pretty much the same. The world has changed and I do have to say that we have always been lucky in having some awesome neighbors and trespassers would not be confronted alone but I think a good scare of prosecution usually does the job.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> LOL now that was quite an argument. Too bad you can't see that you've contradicted yourself.
> 
> How did those gun free zones get established? By law or govt regulation. So in arguing for gun free zones you are arguing for the gov't to infringe/limit our rights to keep and bear arms. How do you constitutionally justify gun free jails when citizens are disarmed but the gov't is not? Even a visitor can't bring a gun into a prison. So you might want to give the topic a bit more thought and figure out if you are for or against an elementary school level interpretation of 2A.
> 
> ...


If you would bother to read my post you would already know where a gun free zone can be established constitutionally.... And you are correct, not even a visitor nor a guard are allowed weapons in these zones. I can declare my living room off limits to guns, knives and even spit wads if I so desire, so can any business establishment. Governments can also regulate weaponry in any of their buildings as they see fit as long as the owners (the people) grant them the authority to do so. This is not an infringement of anyone's rights, but rather a validation of them. Think property rights. Ninth amendment if you are confused.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If you would bother to read my post you would already know where a gun free zone can be established constitutionally.... And you are correct, not even a visitor nor a guard are allowed weapons in these zones. I can declare my living room off limits to guns, knives and even spit wads if I so desire, so can any business establishment. Governments can also regulate weaponry in any of their buildings as they see fit as long as the owners (the people) grant them the authority to do so. This is not an infringement of anyone's rights, but rather a validation of them. Think property rights. Ninth amendment if you are confused.


What a minute....what happened to your standard that the USCONS says "shall not be infringed" period? It doesn't say shall not be infringed except in certain places. And once again, you show a fundamental lack of understanding of the purpose of the USCONS. It's purpose is to define and limit the powers of the federal gov't and by the 14th amendment to extend some of the gov't limitations to the state and local levels. The fact that you can limit my rights in your living room is irrelevant. The USCONS does not limit your powers over your property. The gov't can not generally limit your rights in your living room except as the exercise of your rights infringes upon the rights of others. So your analogy is irrelevant. 

If, as you say, the people can grant the gov't the power to infringe constitutional rights in a gov't building, why can't the people give the gov't the power to infringe rights in parks, on the highway, and every where else? And, again applying your standard, where in the USCONS does it say that the people can give the gov't the power to limit rights or create gun free zones? Show me. It is your standard, so show me. 

The answer is, the people can give the gov't the power to limit rights and that is via a constitutional amendment. So show me the amendment where that has happened. 

You created a standard and by your own description above, your argument fails to meet that standard.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> What a minute....what happened to your standard that the USCONS says "shall not be infringed" period? It doesn't say shall not be infringed except in certain places. And once again, you show a fundamental lack of understanding of the purpose of the USCONS. It's purpose is to define and limit the powers of the federal gov't and by the 14th amendment to extend some of the gov't limitations to the state and local levels. The fact that you can limit my rights in your living room is irrelevant. The USCONS does not limit your powers over your property. The gov't can not generally limit your rights in your living room except as the exercise of your rights infringes upon the rights of others. So your analogy is irrelevant.
> 
> If, as you say, the people can grant the gov't the power to infringe constitutional rights in a gov't building, why can't the people give the gov't the power to infringe rights in parks, on the highway, and every where else? And, again applying your standard, where in the USCONS does it say that the people can give the gov't the power to limit rights or create gun free zones? Show me. It is your standard, so show me.
> 
> ...


The government was granted certain limited powers by the adoption of our constitution by "we the people" that is where any of their authority comes from. Read the document sometime and try to understand its and the federal governments purpose. 
That is to protect the people's God given rights. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a requirement to do so. It would be a violation of property rights (non enumerated rights mentioned in the ninth Amendment) to force anyone to keep arms in their homes. They may, of course, but don't have to.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The government was granted certain limited powers by the adoption of our constitution by "we the people" that is where any of their authority comes from. Read the document sometime and try to understand its and the federal governments purpose.
> That is to protect the people's God given rights. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a requirement to do so. It would be a violation of property rights (non enumerated rights mentioned in the ninth Amendment) to force anyone to keep arms in their homes. They may, of course, but don't have to.


well, that certainly cleared that up. ound:

I refer you back to my post prior. If you would like to respond to that instead of some irrelevant non-issue, please do so. Or you can man up and admit you are wrong. Your choice. 

If you can find a constitutional law scholar or SCOTUS justice who will back up your claims that 2A is simultaneously absolute and limited, I'll eagerly read what they have to say. :hysterical:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> well, that certainly cleared that up. ound:
> 
> I refer you back to my post prior. If you would like to respond to that instead of some irrelevant non-issue, please do so. Or you can man up and admit you are wrong. Your choice.
> 
> If you can find a constitutional law scholar or SCOTUS justice who will back up your claims that 2A is simultaneously absolute and limited, I'll eagerly read what they have to say. :hysterical:


I have never claimed the second amendment was both absolute and limited. That was your idea. Not quite sure where you got it. :shrug:


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have never claimed the second amendment was both absolute and limited. That was your idea. Not quite sure where you got it. :shrug:


You really should read some of the stuff you write.  Some of it is quite ...well...fascinating. 

In msg 110 of this thread you argue that 2A is absolute...


> Please note the period after the word infringed, there are no exceptions listed.


In msg 119 and 125 you insist there is an exception but you have yet to tell me where in the USCONS that exception is listed or when and how the people granted the exception. 

I really don't care which side of the argument you want to take, but it would be nice if your positions were not mutually exclusive :smack and you demonstrated an understanding of that.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> You really should read some of the stuff you write. Some of it is quite ...well...fascinating.
> 
> In msg 110 of this thread you argue that 2A is absolute...
> 
> ...


i agree that the second amendment ends with a period right after the words "shall not be infringed". I also pointed out that the people are not required to keep nor bear them. There is a difference between May and must. I also pointed you to the ninth amendment which covers many rights not enumerated in the constitution. Rights such as not allowing guns in their own homes or other property they may own. 
Kinda like allowing same sex marriage and requiring it. I think you will find that declaring a prison yard, cells or other places where the prisoners have access to, a gun free zone just makes sense.... Seeing as it is our own property we have set aside for the purpose of housing some of..... Shall we say, less than polite citizens.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> i agree that the second amendment ends with a period right after the words "shall not be infringed". I also pointed out that the people are not required to keep nor bear them. There is a difference between May and must. I also pointed you to the ninth amendment which covers many rights not enumerated in the constitution. Rights such as not allowing guns in their own homes or other property they may own.
> Kinda like allowing same sex marriage and requiring it. I think you will find that declaring a prison yard, cells or other places where the prisoners have access to, a gun free zone just makes sense.... Seeing as it is our own property we have set aside for the purpose of housing some of..... Shall we say, less than polite citizens.


OF COURSE IT MAKES SENSE! :smack But the standard you set out in msg 110 says no exceptions and now you are arguing for an exception. Which side of the issue are you on? Apparently, since more of your messages are arguing for an exception to 2A, I'll assume you lean in that direction. Now tell me where this exception is authorized in the constitution? I'll help you out. For the prisoners, they have lost their gun rights by due process as required by the USCONS 5th and 14th amendments. 

But what about visitors? How is it that the gov't can limit the rights of private citizens to carry guns into a prison when the visitor's rights have not been lost thru due process? Here's a hint. You are right, 2A can be limited and infringed. But to find it in the USCONS requires thought and understanding. It's there if you'll just read the USCONS and think about it. 


I have no idea why you keep on the may and must argument. Unless I miss-typed something somewhere, which is always a possibility, that is a non-issue. I've not argued anything about must carry. 

I'm going to bed. I suggest you do the same and sleep on your 2A thoughts for a while. Once you decide whether you are for no exceptions or against no exceptions, please get back to us.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> OF COURSE IT MAKES SENSE! :smack But the standard you set out in msg 110 says no exceptions and now you are arguing for an exception. Which side of the issue are you on? Apparently, since more of your messages are arguing for an exception to 2A, I'll assume you lean in that direction. Now tell me where this exception is authorized in the constitution? I'll help you out. For the prisoners, they have lost their gun rights by due process as required by the USCONS 5th and 14th amendments.
> 
> But what about visitors? How is it that the gov't can limit the rights of private citizens to carry guns into a prison when the visitor's rights have not been lost thru due process? Here's a hint. You are right, 2A can be limited and infringed. But to find it in the USCONS requires thought and understanding. It's there if you'll just read the USCONS and think about it.
> 
> ...


i am for no exceptions to the 2a. That part should be pretty obvious. I am also very pro property rights. Which should also be pretty obvious. There is no conflict between them... May and must are NOT irrelevant. I may grant someone their right to keep and bear their arms on my property but I may opt out and declare my property off limits to guns if I choose to. There are no laws nor limits on my right to declare my property or any portion of it a gun free zone if I wish. Ninth amendment counts.


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

Deke it seems your confused on the constitution and bill of rights...

Like much of this country...

The intent and purpose is to control the government.
Not the people.

One reason you can be drug tested but a government employ not.
Sure they can be but well here...

https://ctas-eli.ctas.tennessee.edu...l-employee-drug-testing-constitutional-issues

"Drug testing of employees in the private sector has become quite common. Local governments also have become interested in testing of employees to detect drug and/or alcohol use. Unlike employers in the private sector, however, governmental employers are limited by constitutional considerations. It is well settled that drug testing by government employers constitutes a &#8220;search&#8221; under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Probable cause and a warrant are generally required for government searches, although the Supreme Court has carved out exceptions.[1] Even in those instances where testing is permitted under the Fourth Amendment, the due process clause and the equal protection clause of the Constitution prohibit certain practices and procedures in connection with the testing of employees. Local government employers can be held liable for monetary damages when an employee&#8217;s constitutional rights have been violated as a result of drug testing.[2]"


As a private employer I am not bound by the bill of rights.

Although YH argument for gun free zones on public venues IMO is a infringement of the 2nd.

I have a right to be safe and secure. 
That is two rights not exactly enumerated but a given.
The forth kind of cover it but that is again addressing the government not my fellow citizens.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> i am for no exceptions to the 2a. That part should be pretty obvious. I am also very pro property rights. Which should also be pretty obvious. There is no conflict between them... May and must are NOT irrelevant. I may grant someone their right to keep and bear their arms on my property but I may opt out and declare my property off limits to guns if I choose to. There are no laws nor limits on my right to declare my property or any portion of it a gun free zone if I wish. Ninth amendment counts.


You are so confused you don't even know how confused you are. This isn't about your home and property, it is about gov't owned property. You are for a 2A infringement of my rights to keep and bear arms on gov't property. You are arguing for mutually exclusive positions.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

||Downhome|| said:


> Deke it seems your confused on the constitution and bill of rights...
> 
> Like much of this country...
> 
> ...


WHAT? Here's is where I said this in msg # 126



> " _And once again, you show a fundamental lack of understanding of the purpose of the USCONS. It's purpose is to define and limit the powers of the federal gov't and by the 14th amendment to extend some of the gov't limitations to the state and local levels. The fact that you can limit my rights in your living room is irrelevant. The USCONS does not limit your powers over your property. The gov't can not generally limit your rights in your living room except as the exercise of your rights infringes upon the rights of others. So your analogy is irrelevant. _


So I agree with your statement 100% that the USCONS is about controlling gov't, not the people. Don't misinterpret me punching holes in YH's illogical and conflicting argument that I somehow think otherwise. He wants to have an exception free 2A but then argues for exceptions by calling them property rights. He is so obviously wrong a child can see it. YH was proven wrong by SCOTUS when they rightly ruled that National Parks could not keep gun bans in place.


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

OK Deke, I went back to 110 and read from there...

I'm guilty of jumping in at the end of a convo (I'm sure you two are close to cinching this)...

As such made a misinformed opinion... 

And stand corrected.

The thing with rights is they can not be taken by force or coercion,
though they may be freely given up.

So I suppose the premise is that by breaking the law you have made a free choice,
in doing so your open to the consequence of that choice.

Which one may be loosing your right to the second amendment.
Along with your personal liberty and property.

Now though I think we can all agree there are a lot of Illegal Laws.
They stand because it difficult to challenge.

I have stated before if there is not a victim there is not a crime.
So to enact laws based on potential circumstance is a government over 
reach to me.
Speeding for instance, public safety you say.
Revenue generation I say.
Look at the Autobahn for a example.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> You are so confused you don't even know how confused you are. This isn't about your home and property, it is about gov't owned property. You are for a 2A infringement of my rights to keep and bear arms on gov't property. You are arguing for mutually exclusive positions.


In my neck of the woods the government is we the people, who have the right to dictate to anyone our rules while they are on our property. This in no way infringes your 2nd amendment right to keep and bear any arms you want on your property, or the property of others who are agreeable to having arms on their property. I am also well aware there are many unconstitutional laws regarding arms currently on the books, but this is not one of them.


----------



## WildernesFamily (Mar 11, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> update 2
> 
> after verifying with the state prosecutor, the trespasser has no priors, I told him I wanted the guy prosecuted, but we needed to find some sort of punishment that wouldn't ruin the guy's life with a felony conviction.
> 
> The prosecutor was happy with that and said he is planning on not even pursuing the felony trespass charge, but holding in aside for a couple of years. If the guy stays clean, the charge will be dropped. In exchange, the trespasser has to agree to give up his guns and hunting permits, there will be some fine for killing the fawn, no jail time, no felony conviction. That sounds fair to me.


Thank you for that... for showing him mercy. We don't know the circumstances of his life, though we surely all jump to fast conclusions. He is so young and you have given him another chance. It sounds fair, and I'm glad he won't face a felony conviction this time around.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

||Downhome|| said:


> Speeding for instance, public safety you say.
> Revenue generation I say.
> Look at the Autobahn for a example.


I have driven on the autobahn.... nice road to say the least and while there are no set speed limits such as we have on our interstates, they do have stiff penalties for driving at speeds deemed to be unsafe. Most drivers understand that driving conditions vary depending on time of day, weather and flow of traffic and adjust their speed accordingly. On a nice sunny day, if there is light traffic and you can see the road is clear a mile ahead it may be safe to drive at speeds in excess of 150 mph, most times that is not the case so safe operating speed may be closer to 65 mph, in some instances 25 mph may get you a nasty ticket!


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have driven on the autobahn.... nice road to say the least and while there are no set speed limits such as we have on our interstates, they do have stiff penalties for driving at speeds deemed to be unsafe. Most drivers understand that driving conditions vary depending on time of day, weather and flow of traffic and adjust their speed accordingly. On a nice sunny day, if there is light traffic and you can see the road is clear a mile ahead it may be safe to drive at speeds in excess of 150 mph, most times that is not the case so safe operating speed may be closer to 65 mph, in some instances 25 mph may get you a nasty ticket!


I actually wish we had the same. Alberta drivers seem to believe that because the sign says they're allowed to drive 110 km/hr, they must meet or exceed that, even on days like today when there is no visibility.

With winter conditions happening often, it's still amazing to me when I listen to the news and hear there were 250 accidents in the city between midnight and 8:00 am. After all, they were only driving at the legal speed limit


----------



## JoePa (Mar 14, 2013)

Meanwhile at the head of the bay - whats his name is herding his cattle - and 100 miles away his son is hunting for deer so they don't starve this coming winter - wait a minute - what does this have to do with the OP's post - to tell you the truth - nothing - kinda like the autobahn


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

JoePa said:


> Meanwhile at the head of the bay - whats his name is herding his cattle - and 100 miles away his son is hunting for deer so they don't starve this coming winter - wait a minute - what does this have to do with the OP's post - to tell you the truth - nothing - kinda like the autobahn


I guess you missed my point, but really whats have this thread have to do with the OP?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> In my neck of the woods the government is we the people, who have the right to dictate to anyone our rules while they are on our property. This in no way infringes your 2nd amendment right to keep and bear any arms you want on your property, or the property of others who are agreeable to having arms on their property. I am also well aware there are many unconstitutional laws regarding arms currently on the books, but this is not one of them.


I'm not arguing the constitutionality of anything at this point. I'm laughing at your mind numbing insistence that 2A is simultaneously absolute and limited if you and your buddies in your neck of the woods want it to be.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> I'm not arguing the constitutionality of anything at this point. I'm laughing at your mind numbing insistence that 2A is simultaneously absolute and limited if you and your buddies in your neck of the woods want it to be.


I suppose you and your buddies are not a part of we the people? I suppose you also being forced to house members of the military in your home also violates the 2nd amendment? After all those army guys carry all sorts of arms. :huh:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wr said:


> I actually wish we had the same. Alberta drivers seem to believe that because the sign says they're allowed to drive 110 km/hr, they must meet or exceed that, even on days like today when there is no visibility.
> 
> With winter conditions happening often, it's still amazing to me when I listen to the news and hear there were 250 accidents in the city between midnight and 8:00 am. After all, they were only driving at the legal speed limit


I have had several discussions here on HT where some insist if you are only going the speed limit you are a road hazard!


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I suppose you and your buddies are not a part of we the people? I suppose you also being forced to house members of the military in your home also violates the 2nd amendment? After all those army guys carry all sorts of arms. :huh:


That is so nonsensical and irrelevant to the discussion, I can't give you a serious response. 

Feel free to carry on with your opinion. It is so far from the realm of reality that it is beyond my ability to help you find daylight.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> That is so nonsensical and irrelevant to the discussion, I can't give you a serious response.
> 
> *Feel free to carry on with your opinion. *It is so far from the realm of reality that it is beyond my ability to help you find daylight.


thanks for your permission to beleive the obvious, I plan to do just that.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> thanks for your permission to beleive the obvious, I plan to do just that.


You're welcome. And I'm sure you will continue to do just that. ound:


----------



## gimpyrancher (Jun 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I may grant someone their right to keep and bear their arms on my property but I may opt out and declare my property off limits to guns if I choose to. There are no laws nor limits on my right to declare my property or any portion of it a gun free zone if I wish. Ninth amendment counts.


You can do so BECAUSE you are a private citizen.

However, it is far different than when government tries to do the same.

Oregon State is a gun state. However, numerous local municipalities in the state have banned (my words) our state gun rights. However, they are not enforceable unless you choose to. Clarified, they can enforce them until higher courts overrule them, as is the norm.


----------

