quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

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

quote:

I'm sure there is some vagueness in the law but in this regard it is 100% clear. Anyone can use a navigable water way at or below the high water mark for purposes of transportation or recreation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

HERE is the exact bar.

Damn he is one crazy looking bastard


Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I did and I agree... that means the gravel bar was private property.

Butch

Missouri is a Castle Doctrine state....

Missouri (Extends to any building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance of any kind, whether the building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile (e.g., a camper, RV or mobile home), which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night, whether the person is residing there temporarily, permanently or visiting (e.g., a hotel or motel), and any vehicle. The defense against civil suits is absolute and includes the award of attorney's fees, court costs, and all reasonable expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff.)

Doesnt sound like there were any buildings on the gravel bar, or even in the wooded section.

quote:

A lawyer from Ozark, Mo., Harry Styron, has researched extensively the topic of property rights along streams and rivers.

“These cases are really very 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.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Dom I linked the laws... show me where it says...

quote:

I'm sure there is some vagueness in the law but in this regard it is 100% clear. Anyone can use a navigable water way at or below the high water mark for purposes of transportation or recreation.

It specifically says low water mark... when the water is up yes the water is ALWAYS free access... but the property owner always has property rights TO THE WATER LINE.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave
This case isn't, well shouldn't anyway, be all that difficult to defend. Aside from the new law governing Castle Doctrine in Missouri, this is a straight-up self defence case.

You have a man on his own property (Castle Doctrine from 1692) being threatened by one armed man while another attempts to disarm him. This should make the shooting justifiable under any reasonable definition of "self-defence" anywhere, but 1692 should strengthen the self-defence case since it occurred on the mans private property.

It seems that something is being lost in this conversation though. That is that even if someone has the right to be on your property because of federal right-of-way regulations, they absolutely do not have the right to threaten you and attempt to disarm you on your own property in the state of Missouri.

I would also like to point out that as far as I can tell, no one even knows whether or not the rafters were on a part of the gravel bar that they had the right to be on. There is a lot of fuss being made about the waterline issue, but does anyone know where this altercation even took place in relationship to the waterline? That aspect of prosecution is moot if the man who was shot had crossed the waterline.

-SD-

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Dom I keep quoting the law... low water mark or to the water line... That includes everything to the water... yes the water line will change as the river goes up and down but at the time of the incident it was his property... unless you can show me otherwise... Keep in mind I am not defending the assholes actions... just saying he WILL claim it was his property and he may very well be right...and it could make a difference in the court case.

the case you quoted has no bearing on Missouri law

Butch

quote:

This power to regulate navigation confers upon the United States a 'dominant servitude,' FPC v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 347 U.S. 239, 249, 74 S.Ct. 487, 493, 98 L.Ed. 686 (1954), where extends to the entire stream and the stream bed below ordinary high-water mark.

quote:

Nope. They were all on the public way

quote:

Missouri's SYG removed the rafters duty to retreat

quote:

I would also like to point out that as far as I can tell, no one even knows whether or not the rafters were on a part of the gravel bar that they had the right to be on. There is a lot of fuss being made about the waterline issue, but does anyone know where this altercation even took place in relationship to the waterline? That aspect of prosecution is moot if the man who was shot had crossed the waterline.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

Missouri's SYG removed the rafters duty to retreat

Maybe I am opening a can of worms here but Missouri's SYG law would NOT cover the floaters. It only covers Home and vehicle unlike Florida's law. Now self defense could come into play but remember the last aggressive move before the shooting was not by the shooter. Again I am just saying what the shooters lawyer will say... And I think a jury will not buy it.

Butch