4 ms·

You and others are attributing ill intent to the landowners that I did not read in the article. While it is true they receive that benefit from this situation,

by 22289d 4y ago

You and others are attributing ill intent to the landowners that I did not read in the article. While it is true they receive that benefit from this situation, they aren't the ones who created it. They didn't decide which land to make public and which to make private. They are simply playing the hand they've been dealt.

c54 4y ago
This would be true if lobbyists didn’t exist. Too often those who benefit from the status quo masquerade under a pretense of helplessness while using their position to place a toe on the scales. I’m curious though, are you in the category of benefiting landowner? Or coming to their defense in the name of something else?
- 22289d 4y ago
  I came to the defense of the truth. I read the whole article and I read nothing in it that would suggest the land owners have the ill intent that many attribute to them. It seems to be an assumption people quickly jump to but it's not in the article.
  - robocat 4y ago
    The article mentions one person with major ill intent: The hunters who used a ladder to corner-cross in Wyoming now face a civil lawsuit from the owner of the private land whose airspace they stepped through, in addition to the original criminal trespass charge. Their criminal case, currently set for April 14th, will take place in a local court and therefore will not establish legal precedent. However, on March 31st, a judge ordered for their civil case (that is, the one brought by the landowner) to be moved to federal district court, where the outcome could serve as precedent in future cases. Whatever comes next, this legal gray area could very well remain clear as fog for decades to come.
    - 22289d 4y ago
      I think you're making an assumption of ill intent. That or you're relying on information that is not in the quote you just provided. Pressing charges for using a ladder to corner-cross does not by itself indicate ill intent. At least to me. Why did they press charges for that? What was their intent in doing so?
- cscurmudgeon 4y ago
  > Too often Any evidence for that happening here? I’m curious though, are you in the category of benefiting non-landowner? Or coming to their defense in the name of something else?
giantg2 4y ago
Is there a scenario where pressing charges and a civil suit for corner crossing doesn't involve ill will?
- 22289d 4y ago
  The Montana rancher quoted in the article seemed to have a reasonable justification for it. I can't say I fully agree with him or that I'd press charges for it but he doesn't sound like he has ill intent. People firing guns and scaring his kids, trespassing deep into his land, parking in his driveway etc. And local law enforcement stretched thin and unable to respond consistently. So his position is basically I'm going to do everything I can to keep these people away from my property. That's understandable.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    Those scenarios are different than the one I mentioned. Those are also different than the WY ranch case scenario.
    - 22289d 4y ago
      You asked me a question, I answered it.
      - giantg2 4y ago
        And you failed to answer it by injecting other scenarios.
        22289d 4y ago
        > Is there a scenario where pressing charges and a civil suit for corner crossing doesn't involve ill will? This is what you asked me. I think perhaps you intended to ask me something else. The answer to that question is 'yes' and I gave you an example of such. Were the Montana rancher to press charges for corner-crossing, based on his stated reasoning, I don't think that would be ill will. You didn't specific any restrictions on which situations apply or do not apply to your question.
dghlsakjg 4y ago
In this particular instance, they very much created the situation. The landowner called multiple law enforcement agencies until they found one that was willing to push it to prosecution, which the state lost.
armchairhacker 4y ago
Landowners own the land, but they can decide to not prosecute people "trespassing" over the corners (which, AFAIK, has no effect on their private land in any way whatsoever). I'm sure most landowners aren't POS and most do not. But this guy did, and gave the hunters a big fine and a big legal challenge because they were in his "airspace" for no more than a couple minutes. Which is why we need a codified law, so hunters and campers don't even have to worry about this in the future.
prepend 4y ago
They can decide not to prosecute for criminal trespass. This is entirely the landowners fault.

by 22289d 4y ago

c54 4y ago

This would be true if lobbyists didn’t exist. Too often those who benefit from the status quo masquerade under a pretense of helplessness while using their position to place a toe on the scales. I’m curious though, are you in the category of benefiting landowner? Or coming to their defense in the name of something else?

22289d 4y ago
I came to the defense of the truth. I read the whole article and I read nothing in it that would suggest the land owners have the ill intent that many attribute to them. It seems to be an assumption people quickly jump to but it's not in the article.
- robocat 4y ago
  The article mentions one person with major ill intent: The hunters who used a ladder to corner-cross in Wyoming now face a civil lawsuit from the owner of the private land whose airspace they stepped through, in addition to the original criminal trespass charge. Their criminal case, currently set for April 14th, will take place in a local court and therefore will not establish legal precedent. However, on March 31st, a judge ordered for their civil case (that is, the one brought by the landowner) to be moved to federal district court, where the outcome could serve as precedent in future cases. Whatever comes next, this legal gray area could very well remain clear as fog for decades to come.
  - 22289d 4y ago
    I think you're making an assumption of ill intent. That or you're relying on information that is not in the quote you just provided. Pressing charges for using a ladder to corner-cross does not by itself indicate ill intent. At least to me. Why did they press charges for that? What was their intent in doing so?
cscurmudgeon 4y ago
> Too often Any evidence for that happening here? I’m curious though, are you in the category of benefiting non-landowner? Or coming to their defense in the name of something else?

giantg2 4y ago

Is there a scenario where pressing charges and a civil suit for corner crossing doesn't involve ill will?

22289d 4y ago
The Montana rancher quoted in the article seemed to have a reasonable justification for it. I can't say I fully agree with him or that I'd press charges for it but he doesn't sound like he has ill intent. People firing guns and scaring his kids, trespassing deep into his land, parking in his driveway etc. And local law enforcement stretched thin and unable to respond consistently. So his position is basically I'm going to do everything I can to keep these people away from my property. That's understandable.
- giantg2 4y ago
  Those scenarios are different than the one I mentioned. Those are also different than the WY ranch case scenario.
  - 22289d 4y ago
    You asked me a question, I answered it.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      And you failed to answer it by injecting other scenarios.
      - 22289d 4y ago
        > Is there a scenario where pressing charges and a civil suit for corner crossing doesn't involve ill will? This is what you asked me. I think perhaps you intended to ask me something else. The answer to that question is 'yes' and I gave you an example of such. Were the Montana rancher to press charges for corner-crossing, based on his stated reasoning, I don't think that would be ill will. You didn't specific any restrictions on which situations apply or do not apply to your question.

dghlsakjg 4y ago

In this particular instance, they very much created the situation. The landowner called multiple law enforcement agencies until they found one that was willing to push it to prosecution, which the state lost.

armchairhacker 4y ago

Landowners own the land, but they can decide to not prosecute people "trespassing" over the corners (which, AFAIK, has no effect on their private land in any way whatsoever). I'm sure most landowners aren't POS and most do not. But this guy did, and gave the hunters a big fine and a big legal challenge because they were in his "airspace" for no more than a couple minutes. Which is why we need a codified law, so hunters and campers don't even have to worry about this in the future.

prepend 4y ago

They can decide not to prosecute for criminal trespass. This is entirely the landowners fault.