Goose hunters & Jeff 2.0 ???

[Obi-Wan]

https://www.outdoorlife.com/hunting/video-farmer-discs-goose-decoys/

 

[Vollmer]

 

[lunkerslayer]

Stay tuned for more details, won't cast judgment till i hear more of this story. I'm glad that the Leo is staying out of it, if the goose hunter wants to take it to court let him sue for damages.

 

[Kurtr]

https://www.outdoorlife.com/hunting/video-farmer-discs-goose-decoys/

Nope the guide would not pay the lease and was asked to remove decoys multiple times. So I would say the landowner was in the right here.

 

[Allen]

Nope the guide would not pay the lease and was asked to remove decoys multiple times. So I would say the landowner was in the right here.

It wasn't the landowner, it was the farmer leasing the land from the elderly lady.

What I want to know is when did vandalism become non-punishable under the law? Was he acting as his aunt's agent in destroying the decoys? Because if he just took it upon himself, this just smells of an unlawful act.

 

[lunkerslayer]

Allen you didn't even read the article did you smh

 

[Obi-Wan]

Nope the guide would not pay the lease and was asked to remove decoys multiple times. So I would say the landowner was in the right here.

He was not the land owner, I believe he is the nephew of the land owner. Both parties claim to have a lease and both parties dispute the others lease.

 

[lunkerslayer]

There is only one person who can allow the Leo on that land and its neither party

 

[johnr]

Hope he has to pay for the decoys he ruined.

 

[eyexer]

This is a classic example why so many loath farmers now days. So many arrogant pricks

 

[Kurtr]

He was not the land owner, I believe he is the nephew of the land owner. Both parties claim to have a lease and both parties dispute the others lease.

It is all over every snow goose page on face book and the guy is a known crook in the guiding world who has stiffed many people. It wasn’t like he just showed up and plowed the decoys under this had been going on for days.

 

[Allen]

Allen you didn't even read the article did you smh

Yes, yes I did.

So did you read it and fail to understand the issues?

 

[lunkerslayer]

Yes, yes I did.

So did you read it and fail to understand the issues?

The police officer did not have the authority to make any arrest on private property, since the nephew had tried unsuccessfully to evict the freeloader from his aunts property he decided to make sure the freeloader wasnt going to make any money from doing personal busnines on private property.
Even if you serve an eviction notice here in North Dakota to a freeloader dead beat you still need to get a court order to be able to get the Leo the authority to physically remove the freeloader from the property. That is a fact Allen ,Leo has no authority to arrest anyone, do I think the nephew was out of line in running over his decoys yes I do. Still doesn't change the situation that the freeloader is being thick headed stubborn and won't get the picture that he isn't welcomed there.
Who's at fault I'm not making any conclusions until I get more information just like I did for the first guide vs Jeff thread. The guide was wrong kurtr has already stated that this guide is a poor business man takes advantage of paying clients so with that said the nephew has my money.

 

[bravo]

I’m all for sticking it to a deadbeat guide, but I have a feeling the farmer is going to be out a few thousand bucks. Even if he was the landowner, I doubt you can destroy someone’s property like that. It would be akin to a landlord torching your furniture for not paying rent. Maybe he figured that into his price of making a point though.

 

[lunkerslayer]

I’m all for sticking it to a deadbeat guide, but I have a feeling the farmer is going to be out a few thousand bucks. Even if he was the landowner, I doubt you can destroy someone’s property like that. It would be akin to a landlord torching your furniture for not paying rent. Maybe he figured that into his price of making a point though.

Unless the decoys were determined to be rubbish by the other lease holder who was authorized to be on the property. Clearly I'm playing devils advocate here since I don't know what the courts are going to do about someone trespassing on private property.

 

[Allen]

The police officer did not have the authority to make any arrest on private property, since the nephew had tried unsuccessfully to evict the freeloader from his aunts property he decided to make sure the freeloader wasnt going to make any money from doing personal busnines on private property.
Even if you serve an eviction notice here in North Dakota to a freeloader dead beat you still need to get a court order to be able to get the Leo the authority to physically remove the freeloader from the property. That is a fact Allen ,Leo has no authority to arrest anyone, do I think the nephew was out of line in running over his decoys yes I do. Still doesn't change the situation that the freeloader is being thick headed stubborn and won't get the picture that he isn't welcomed there.
Who's at fault I'm not making any conclusions until I get more information just like I did for the first guide vs Jeff thread. The guide was wrong kurtr has already stated that this guide is a poor business man takes advantage of paying clients so with that said the nephew has my money.

First of all. I have never said the guide shouldn't get the boot, because he most certainly should. I am only saying that the law enforcement here failed the guide when it came to the destruction of his private property. If a LEO sees a crime in progress (vandalism, destruction of private property, etc), that LEO can most certainly go onto private property to deal with it even if the property owner would prefer for the crime to continue.

2010 Arkansas Code
Title 5 - Criminal Offenses
Subtitle 4 - Offenses Against Property
Chapter 38 - Damage or Destruction of Property
Subchapter 2 - Offenses Generally
§ 5-38-203 - Criminal mischief in the first degree.​

5-38-203. Criminal mischief in the first degree.

(a) A person commits the offense of criminal mischief in the first degree if he or she purposely and without legal justification destroys or causes damage to any:

(1) Property of another; or

(2) Property, whether his or her own or property of another, for the purpose of collecting any insurance for the property.

(b) Criminal mischief in the first degree is a:

(1) Class C felony if the amount of actual damage is five hundred dollars ($500) or more; or

(2) Class A misdemeanor if otherwise committed.

(c) In an action under this section involving cutting and removing timber from the property of another person:

(1) The following create a presumption of a purpose to commit the offense of criminal mischief in the first degree:

(A) The failure to obtain the survey as required by 15-32-101; or

(B) The purposeful misrepresentation of the ownership or origin of the timber; and

(2) (A) There is imposed in addition to a penalty in subsection (b) of this section a fine of not more than two (2) times the value of the timber destroyed or damaged.

(B) However, in addition to subdivision (c)(2)(A) of this section, the court may require the defendant to make restitution to the owner of the timber.

 

[lunkerslayer]

What does that law say about someone trespassing on private property

 

[Allen]

What does that law say about someone trespassing on private property

Not a damn thing. One wrong doesn't require a second.

 

[lunkerslayer]

Not a damn thing. One wrong doesn't require a second.

Thank you Allen that's exactly my point if Leo isn't going to remove the freeloader from private property then why would leo arrest someone from destroying someone else's property that's not legally supposed to be there.

 

[Allen]

That's not how laws and law enforcement works.

Lease problems are exactly a civil problem. Destruction of private property is criminal. Why is that so hard to understand?