RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!!

RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

kdsub -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/25/2013 8:41:35 PM)
I agree and the Missouri Water laws are complicated and contradicting in different sections but all say as a minimum that the low water mark is the designation of private property... and this means the shooting took place on his land. I still think this will have little affect on the charge of murder...but it does give a good lawyer something to sink his teeth in...Because Missouri SYG laws: A person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining. A person does not have a duty to retreat from private property that is owned or leased by such individual. And below would be the states task: If a defendant asserts that his or her use of force is described under subdivision (2) of subsection 2 of this section, the burden shall then be on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the use of such force was necessary to defend against what he or she reasonably believed was the use or imminent use of unlawful force. Butch

tazzygirl -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/25/2013 8:42:47 PM)
Harry Styron, a lawyer from Ozark, Missouri, and an expert on property rights along streams and rivers, said such cases were extremely confusing. 'They are difficult to interpret,' Styron said. 'You are on private property, but you have a right to be there if it's a navigable stream and as long as you are on a gravel bar that is submerged during parts of the year, because it's part of the stream bed.'

BamaD -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/25/2013 8:44:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: If the landowner lived there and he didn't know about waterways easements, and thought it WAS his PROPERTY, how the hell did some strangers know all about easements? Or was it some "macho" thing among the boaters that escalated. "Goddam old farmer can't tell ME what to do!" Stranger's who had been boating there for years and years. Hell, I dont live there and I know that gravel bar is public property. Why didnt the property owner? It's not public property, it's a public easement. I'm thinking there are 3 stories here His story their story the true story. As for those who wonder why anyone would approach a man with a gun, remember, alcohol was involved. What I have been trying to say with lets wait for the rest of the information but yours is simpler and better.

DomKen -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/25/2013 8:45:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Dom....you need to read through the appropriate sections... The link IS the law on recreation rights and property owners. It exactly covers this case as to property rights and recreational rights and it is spelled out clearly if you take the time to read through it. Butch Which pages? That is a fairly long PDF. 18, 27 and the section starting at 223 are the most important. 18 was not helpful although 19 was and confirmed that federal law does grant public access to navigable water ways. 27 is about water rights, i.e. who can use the water in a water way and for what purposes. It is not relevant. 223 is an appendix of water rights case law and they all seem to focus on water rights not on public easements.

BamaD -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/25/2013 8:46:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Skinner v. Osage County, 822 S.W.2d 437 (1991) I keep seeing this case cited in reference to the gravel bars. I couldnt shoot someone accessing the beach if they used the "public easement" from my house. Its my understanding that if they were below the water mark, its not considered "private property". He may own it, but its still not property he can drive people off from. The "expert" in the Post Dispatch article didn't seem sure about where it ended for his explanation the law is unclear there.

DomKen -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/25/2013 8:47:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I agree and the Missouri Water laws are complicated and contradicting in different sections but all say as a minimum that the low water mark is the designation of private property... and this means the shooting took place on his land. Butch No one ever disputed that. But it was on the public easement just like if it had happened on the sidewalk outside your house. You may own the property but you cannot deny its use by the public.

BamaD -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/25/2013 8:49:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin FR It seems to me from what's in the article, the guy with gun shouldn't have been firing warning shots, especially towards the floaters if indeed that's what happened. The shooting seems to me to have been unnecessary based on what I've gleaned from the article. However there aren't enough details provided to make a determination one way or the other. All the witnesses were in the floater group and may be biased for the victim. If I'm that land owner and I'm going down to the river armed to yell at people who are trespassing, my piece would be holstered and I wouldn't approach too close to the floaters. I certainly wouldn't pull the gun unless they started to approach me with a threatening attitude. Maybe a warning shot if there is time before they reach my personal space. In fact if it was me I would have been somewhat polite about telling the floaters they're trespassing and to leave immediately or at least tried to be polite yet firm. I can't see shooting someone over that situation and there is no comparison here to the Zimmerman case. If I'm a floater who was confronted by a guy brandishing a handgun yelling at me to get off his property, right or wrong, I'm going to apologize and get the fuck out of there. Either way I'm not going to shoot or get shot over practically nothing. In some places, and I don't know if Missouri is one of them, you are required to fire a warning shot, that was the case in Alabama up till about 7 years ago.

tazzygirl -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/25/2013 8:51:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Skinner v. Osage County, 822 S.W.2d 437 (1991) I keep seeing this case cited in reference to the gravel bars. I couldnt shoot someone accessing the beach if they used the "public easement" from my house. Its my understanding that if they were below the water mark, its not considered "private property". He may own it, but its still not property he can drive people off from. The "expert" in the Post Dispatch article didn't seem sure about where it ended for his explanation the law is unclear there. Because the exact gravel bar's water level is still in question. I would think someone from that area would know for sure if the gravel bar was under water part of the year or not.

BamaD -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/25/2013 8:52:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Ok.. so does it start at the low water mark or the high? I thought it was the high The guy in the Post Dispatch said they sometimes use the vegetation line and admitted that this is often hard to determine. The phrase sometime used bothers me.

BamaD -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/25/2013 8:55:00 PM)
Were I grew up, Hannibal Mo the difference between the high and low water mark was nearly a mile the high water mark encompassing three banks and dozens of businesses.

kdsub -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/25/2013 8:56:32 PM)
tazzy I agree it is confusing but in the provided laws it was quite plain as to the ownership of the gravel to the low water mark. But I agree good lawyers will twist the laws into knots to fit their case. Butch

BamaD -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/25/2013 9:00:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub OK all water rights listed in the various stories referencing this thread are WRONG. The real story is this: Property owners own the land to the middle of the river...but not the water. The water of a navigable stream is free to all for boating and wading. BUT the property owners have riparian rights to the EDGE of the water. Meaning the gravel bar WAS his private property. So anything that happened in this case will be filtered through private property rights. Here are the rules of Missouri Butch That is water rights which are entirely different from the public easement for navigable waterways. Basically if you own property and a waterway flows through which can be used by even a canoe or raft you must allow free use of the waterway below the high water line. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Navigable+Waters That would mean that in my home town people who own business on Main street have no control over their own property.

tazzygirl -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/25/2013 9:00:22 PM)
There is a difference between ownership and public rights. Just like beach access, I can own that property, but I cannot block beach access and shoot people for using that access.

kdsub -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/25/2013 9:06:00 PM)
Dom in some sections of the water law it says the property runs to the center of the river with the water above being free and public... and in others as tazzy pointed out the property line is referred to as the low water mark. The problems of course is the law tries to balance property rights and use against the free access to the public above the land in the water... I can see where these laws need to be vague for many reasons.. for instance the waterway may naturally move one direction or another over time... An owners rights to build along the river may interferer with free navigation...and of course the abuse of private property along river banks. So I believe this case will be on private property but the circumstances of free access will be taken into account in the trial. And reason will have to prevail. Butch

kdsub -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/25/2013 9:07:59 PM)
That's right but his land was not the access... the river was their free access not his land. And by the way he does not have to provide access to the river across his land. Butch

tazzygirl -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/25/2013 9:09:52 PM)
No, he doesnt. My point is that the gravel bar, if its submerged during any part of the year, its public access. The one guy was wrong going into his woods. But, after he left the woods and returned to the rest of the party, they were no longer trespassing.

DomKen -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/25/2013 9:13:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Were I grew up, Hannibal Mo the difference between the high and low water mark was nearly a mile the high water mark encompassing three banks and dozens of businesses. It's not the flood level but the normal high water mark.

tazzygirl -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/25/2013 9:15:14 PM)
This.. to me... is a gravel bar.... [image]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LHOrtyqJKvg/Tlg9Mgsnu2I/AAAAAAAABCg/KMh45ZFpIqM/s1600/IMGP9847.jpg[/image]

kdsub -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/25/2013 9:15:22 PM)
No Dom it is different... the land under the water is private property... the water over it is public... to the low water line is his property. This has to be the case to insure the owners right to the waterline to do as he pleases under the water laws statutes.

kdsub -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/25/2013 9:17:18 PM)
The gravel they were talking about extended to the water only on one side... It was not surrounded by water. On your picture it would be the gravel on the far bank . Butch

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875