Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Amazing what "facts" you can find on the internet, isn't it?
"First, while the jurors ruled in favor of plaintiffs Ronald Morales; his father, Arturo Morales; his daughters, Angelique and Venese Morales; and their friend, Emma English, they also ruled that the party had trespassed on Barnett's 22,000-acre ranch."
"The trespassing issue "plays quite prominently" in determining whether Barnett acted criminally", Rheinheimer said.
The jury found that Morales had trespassed as he must have...where the altercation took place required passage over Barnett property. They awarded Barnett the appropriate damages - $0.
But the place where the altercation took place was not Barnett property and was a legal location for any hunter. As I said the investigating officer recommended felony charges against Barnett.
That pdf is a long document. I don't see any sensible way to convert it to anything reasonable.
The jury found that Morales had trespassed as he must have...where the altercation took place required passage over Barnett property. They awarded Barnett the appropriate damages - $0.
But the place where the altercation took place was not Barnett property and was a legal location for any hunter. As I said the investigating officer recommended felony charges against Barnett.
That pdf is a long document. I don't see any sensible way to convert it to anything reasonable.
The fact remains that Morales trespassed on Barnett's personally owned property. What difference does it make where the "altercation" took place? You were implying that Morales was not a trespasser and you were wrong. Are you going to beat this thing to death? I have no desire to discuss this issue with you anymore nor any others. Bye.
...I can't imagine that when land is leased to someone that anyone other than the lessee would have authorization to be on it, whether it be state owned or not...
If it has the means to access public lands (like a road going through it) the public cannot be kept from using it to get there. Government agencies are allowed to monitor leased land; There are documented cases of ranchers overusing a lease.
...If a "General" came on my property univited I'd still protect it with my 2nd amendment rights.
The 2nd Amendment covers the ownership of guns, not an inappropriate usage...
A servicemember is also going to be more generally (no pun intended) familiar with weapon usage, and that you shouldn't point a gun at someone you don't intend to shoot...
The 2nd Amendment covers the ownership of guns, not an inappropriate usage...
A servicemember is also going to be more generally (no pun intended) familiar with weapon usage, and that you shouldn't point a gun at someone you don't intend to shoot...
I disagree. Just pointing a gun at someone is enough to deter them from entering your property or doing you harm. You don't have to shoot to make your point. All you have to do is make the threat.
As for your remark about service members what does their knowledge about weapons have to do with anything? The poster felt the need to continually point out the trespasser's military service. Which was totally irrelevant to the issue as was the fact that he was a citizen. I imagine most trespassers are citizens of this country.
If it has the means to access public lands (like a road going through it) the public cannot be kept from using it to get there. Government agencies are allowed to monitor leased land; There are documented cases of ranchers overusing a lease.
And that applies to this case, how? The plaintiff was convicted of trespassing.
And that applies to this case, how? The plaintiff was convicted of trespassing.
Nope. Civil proceedings not criminal. He was found to have trespassed and required to pay $0 to Barnett in compensation. That is how a jury handles a technical violation that did no harm.
When however harm is done they charge you money...as was done to Barnett...$87,000 worth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
