jlf1961
Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
|
Tazzy what part of "property rights are determined on a case by case basis" states that the point at which public access is defined is made clear?
Or let me put it another way.
In some coastal states, people who buy water front property including the beach on the ocean have a deed that reads that the property line ends at the mean high water line. Now considering that the height of the tide varies according to phase of the moon, distance from earth to the moon, which is not a constant, and even with the season, what pray tell does "the mean high water line" mean?
In some states, property on a river or lake states the property line is at the high water mark, so does that mean during a flood? A dry season where the river is lower, what?
In the second example, that definition also would state just where the strip of public access rights would end.
And depending on the season and annual average or above average snow melt and rain fall, that could be anywhere from 10 to 100 feet, if not more.
The article made it clear, to stress my point, that the property line, as well as the strip of free public access is determined on a case by case basis. So how can you make the claim that the people that know the answer have chosen to stay silent?
As a land owner, it is in my best interest to know property law, and even here in Texas, property law and river access public right of way is confusing as hell, and with one exception, we don't have a single navigable river, and I am not even sure that is true in the present time period.
Reading the Missouri law, it is not clear, since it is subject to the interpretation of the courts, the authorities that are responsible for maintaining the condition of the river, and whether or not it is navigable.
And considering that, realistically, the whole definition is subject to change based on a number of environmental conditions, since a river's water level is far from constant.
Getting back to the situation in this case.
Unless I have been drinking to the point of feeling 10 foot tall and bullet proof, which if there is a possibility that I might have to drive, does not happen, in the same situation, I would politely get my shit and clear out. To stand there and argue the point under what, in recent years, been an unusually hot sun, makes both parties nothing more than idiots.
The other possibility is to offer the pissed off guy a beer, and suggest that everyone calm down and listen to what the other person is saying, something I am beginning to think is being bred out of human nature.
Now again, someone at some point decided to turn it into a pissing contest, your basic male induced conflict measuring testosterone, piss, amount of alcohol ingested, and just how much you think you need to impress the women present.
In other words someone went from intelligent human being to terminally stupid at a velocity that if harnessed in space travel would have use going to nearby stars in weeks instead of centuries.
As I understand your point, it was the intelligent move to hold their ground facing a pissed off local who's next action was far from predictable.
Dont take this wrong, but should the occasion arise to go on a rafting expedition where we were to be transiting both public and private property, remind me to wear the best body armor available, or more to the point, get you the best body armor that money can buy. Because although all but 4 states in the US recognize a Texas issue carry permit, I am not going to pack anything other than what is needed to deal with local indigenous wildlife threats.
In other words, if a freaking rabbit comes out of the trees packing a mini gun, the saying, "we be boned" applies and I am going into the water, the same is true for a local telling us to get off their land. If you want to stay and argue, that is fine, your choice. My choice is to leave the area and let the pissed off local take it up with someone else.
As the song says, you gotta know when to hold em, know when to fold em, know when to walk away and know when to run. In this situation, the wise move, who was in the right not withstanding, was to fold their hand and get the hell down the river.
Yes, he could have called the cops and let them sort it out, but from everything I read, he was angry well beyond the point of reason, so instead of calling the cops he grabbed his gun.
I have seen many a person severely injured and be completely correct as to their right to be in a particular place at a particular point in time. As a deputy, I answered two calls where there was a dead person who had a right to be where he was, and the other person disagreed. Most of the time it was injuries resulting from a physical altercation that started with fists and ended when someone picked up a force modifier and beat the living shit out of the person needing extensive medical assistance.
I guess you can say, right or wrong, there is nothing to be gained by standing up to someone that you have no freaking clue as to what their next move is going to be.
_____________________________
Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?
You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.
Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI
|
RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread