Law Advice, re: white priveledge, etc.

[Buster Highmen]

Missed that post, thanks. I guess I was assuming that it if 'white privilege' was such a significant aspect of the situation it would have been covered in the OP... or at least somewhere on page 1.



So it is your contention that only white people are offered deferred sentences? To the casual observer, It would seem that race is a completely insignificant factor in this situation and the mention of 'white privilege' is only being used in the thread title as a rallying cry for "SJW's".

Keep looking for the whetstone, you'll find something.

[DJSapp]

I think you missed the part where the dude with the GoPro was a lackey for this dude: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_C._Kennedy

Yup. Missed that. Good luck op.

[jgb@etree]

Keep looking for the whetstone, you'll find something.

Just trying to find the relevance of 'white privilege' to the topic at hand. Sorry if that bothers you.

[Buster Highmen]

Just trying to find the relevance of 'white privilege' to the topic at hand. Sorry if that bothers you.

It doesn't bother me at all; I was just trying to help you appear less dense since the OP clearly states what he meant.

[jgb@etree]

It doesn't bother me at all; I was just trying to help you appear less dense since the OP clearly states what he meant.

I get it. That's why I thanked you for pointing out the OP's 'explanation' on page 2 that I had missed. I then asked the OP if it was their contention that only white people get deferred sentences and since that isn't the case in reality, how 'white privilege' is even relevant to the thread. It would appear that this question troubles you as you feel compelled to reply, despite the question(s) being directed to the OP. Unless you wrote the thread title for the OP and therefore feel obliged to respond?

[Buster Highmen]

I get it. That's why I thanked you for pointing out the OP's 'explanation' on page 2 that I had missed. I then asked the OP if it was their contention that only white people get deferred sentences and since that isn't the case in reality, how 'white privilege' is even relevant to the thread. It would appear that this question troubles you as you feel compelled to reply, despite the question(s) being directed to the OP. Unless you wrote the thread title for the OP and therefore feel obliged to respond?

Let's see, I guess we could keep on this theme of rehashing the obvious such as the title was made in a somewhat 'tongue in cheek' tone.

However, it's clear that somehow this has piqued your racial sensitivities and are champing at the bit to goose step us all back to your heartfelt "reality" cases and illuminate those of us wandering around in the darkness of libuhral blindness to the searing truth that people of all color are able to buy their way out of legal conundrums and contusions. So, please, feel free to vent and sharpen your ax on the whetsone so evident to everyone of a more enlightened bent.

[single]

Let's see, I guess we could keep on this theme of rehashing the obvious such as the title was made in a somewhat 'tongue in cheek' tone.

Exactly it was just a joke that white people can just pay money to have no criminal record.

[jgb@etree]

Let's see, I guess we could keep on this theme of rehashing the obvious such as the title was made in a somewhat 'tongue in cheek' tone.

However, it's clear that somehow this has piqued your racial sensitivities and are champing at the bit to goose step us all back to your heartfelt "reality" cases and illuminate those of us wandering around in the darkness of libuhral blindness to the searing truth that people of all color are able to buy their way out of legal conundrums and contusions. So, please, feel free to vent and sharpen your ax on the whetsone so evident to everyone of a more enlightened bent.

Still troubled, I see. Ease up on the butthurt, old dude. See below - the OP was perfectly capable of answering the question himself - without turning it in to a political rant as you are trying to do. Go figure. But I guess when you are a 'liburhal' everyone else is less 'enlightened'. Cute. Might as well manufacture something to be outraged about while you are at it.

Exactly it was just a joke that white people can just pay money to have no criminal record.

Do you truly believe that only white people can 'just pay money' to avoid a criminal record, or is that a possibility for people of any race?

[Lone Star]

stfuyfm to the courtesy phone.....

[haydukelives]

Still troubled, I see. Ease up on the butthurt, old dude. See below - the OP was perfectly capable of answering the question himself - without turning it in to a political rant as you are trying to do. Go figure. But I guess when you are a 'liburhal' everyone else is less 'enlightened'. Cute. Might as well manufacture something to be outraged about while you are at it.



Do you truly believe that only white people can 'just pay money' to avoid a criminal record, or is that a possibility for people of any race?

Is that a microaggression

[skifishbum]

Dude man, chill out. The interaction between us and the landowner's manager was entirely civil and he was grateful for our cooperation. The dude even shook our hands and said no hard feelings. I don't think we are messing up your case.

And miCol, thanks so much for the gesture dude, but I think there are a lot better causes to donate to. If you want to make that donation to a good charity or trout unlimited, that would be awesome. No worries, but seriously, I really appreciate it.

ya wanna pretend your "ignorance" and actions isn't not part of the problem w/ western stream access
might as well pretend it's a solution.
2funky nailed it
grade a ammo for those who wish to impose their land ownership on the river bottom, water, and the flora and fauna w/in

[old goat]

Single--are you sure you broke the law? Was the area you stood on obviously outside the high water mark? According to the brochure the Fish and Game Dept publishes the high water mark is defined by a change in vegetation. I'm not a lawyer, nor a Montanan--but looking at the statute part of the definition of criminal trespass in "knowingly". Unfortunate that you admitted guilt (and it's possible you weren't even guilty). Never a good idea. I would think a lawyer might be able to make a case that the high water mark wasn't apparent, that you did not knowingly enter private land. I think going to a judge without consulting a lawyer first is a bad idea, even though it will cost youto hire one. You don't want a misdemeanor--deferred or otherwise--on your record, and what you say to the judge without getting legal advice first may make things worse rather than better. Sounds like you're anxious to admit guilt and plead for mercy, which could backfire. Best case scenario--you weren't actually outside the high water mark, you sue for false arrest, ask for punitive damage, and wind up owning a ranch in Montana where all maggots can fish and kayak to their hearts' content. More likely scenario, lawyer gets charges dismissed. A lot of times what happens to you depends on the prosecutor, on the relationship between the prosecutor and your attorney, and which judge you get, which your lawyer may be able to influence. At least a local lawyer will know what strategy is likely to work best. It is likely that a lot of other cases like yours have been charged and a lawyer should know the outcomes. Whatever you do don't rely on advice from internet pseudolawyers like me.

[snoqpass]

Hopefully the cop got some 8x10 color glossies of this penny ante shit for the judge

[Lone Star]

ya wanna pretend your "ignorance" and actions isn't not part of the problem w/ western stream access
might as well pretend it's a solution.
2funky nailed it
grade a ammo for those who wish to impose their land ownership on the river bottom, water, and the flora and fauna w/in

the way this landowner sees it, the state law isn't even legal. if single were being some sort of nuisance, I could see your point, but the J.C. Kennedys of this country don't believe fishermen or boaters have any right to even be on the river in the first place.

[mtngirl79]

How come conservatards are so unwilling to admit that our legal system often favors white people? JGB, do you really think that differed sentences are fairly and evenly distrabuted among all races? Can you really not imagine that this situation could have ended way differently if Single wasn't white?

I was recently relaying the monkey incident to a conservatard co worker and said I felt bad because it happened the day after the church shooting. The asshole replied with, yeah there are a bunch of black people in the south itching to start a race war...

But it was a white person who went into a church and shot black people.

[Lone Star]

STFUYFM TO THE COURTESY PHONE....

[iceman]

"The monkey incident"?

[mtngirl79]

"The monkey incident"?

Someone called their backpack a monkey and I joked that monkeys weren't allowed and a black lady overheard and went batshit crazy.

[Deebased]

Let's see, I guess we could keep on this theme of rehashing the obvious such as the title was made in a somewhat 'tongue in cheek' tone.

However, it's clear that somehow this has piqued your racial sensitivities and are champing at the bit to goose step us all back to your heartfelt "reality" cases and illuminate those of us wandering around in the darkness of libuhral blindness to the searing truth that people of all color are able to buy their way out of legal conundrums and contusions. So, please, feel free to vent and sharpen your ax on the whetsone so evident to everyone of a more enlightened bent.

Oh shit.... http://racehist.blogspot.in/2013/04/...bes-world.html

[Deebased]

How come conservatards are so unwilling to admit that our legal system often favors white people? JGB, do you really think that differed sentences are fairly and evenly distrabuted among all races? Can you really not imagine that this situation could have ended way differently if Single wasn't white?

I was recently relaying the monkey incident to a conservatard co worker and said I felt bad because it happened the day after the church shooting. The asshole replied with, yeah there are a bunch of black people in the south itching to start a race war...

But it was a white person who went into a church and shot black people.

The problem is when a white guys shoots up a black church its a flag problem, when its a black guy shooting a white cop or shooting up 2 news casters its a gun problem.

But IMO its a people problem

[skifishbum]

the way this landowner sees it, the state law isn't even legal. if single were being some sort of nuisance, I could see your point, but the J.C. Kennedys of this country don't believe fishermen or boaters have any right to even be on the river in the first place.

unfortunately for the op being a self professed ignorant sportsman and trespassing is and reflects poorly on those who aren't.
trial starts tom.
http://files.ctctcdn.com/ea8bbf3f301...a3b19e1e97.pdf
the previous case held that the weber was/is a navigable water and access should not be denied
rich land owners got deep pockets though
hoping for the best

[skifishbum]

the suings and hard work to gain the best/most liberal stream access in the west has already been done by a shitload of good people and a community activists pooches


all thats left is not fuckin up a good thing

[neckdeep]

Trespassing is taken very seriously out west, that's not odd; it's the culture. It's probably the 100 or so disrespectful douchebags that came before you that made them on edge and over-react.

Actually, trespass laws in the West favor potential trespassers in that the land owner has a duty to demarcate his lands with signage, blazes, crops, fences or verbal notice. Traditionally, the trespasser had an affirmative duty to know the status of land before entering and ignorance, mistake or intent was irrelevant. In Idaho and Montucky, you are entitled to notice before you can be considered a trespasser. OP, you have an affirmative duty to know your state's regulations. Idaho and Montana have very generous access regs and the rules of access and trespass are clearly detailed in your reg booklet because, well, this only happens dozens of times every year. Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law. Yeah, I've been there too, it's not easy to get around a cutbank above a hole without touching the grass. I commit numerous de minimis trespasses during the fishing season but I'm not the sort who'd do it right where it's clearly and overtly posted and the property owner's agent is watching me. Buy a cheap used canoe or a mini-cat and float through this asshole's lands at will, enjoying the fact you can get out and wade. Count your blessings. Anglers in CO and WY can't touch the river bottom, not even to drop anchor or get out to lift a boat over a gravel bar.

[neckdeep]

We had to put up with an unbelievable amount of shit and fully half the people were some form of asshole. Lots of those fuckers fished bait out of season and kept either undersized fish down the waders or kept salmon (king, pinks, silvers) that were definitely well known no-nos. Not to mention the people that tried to scare us away by shooting at us.
.

Quoted for truth.

You mean you didn't know that most NW bait plunkers were low life trogs who shit into their own hands? IMHO, if is anyone sitting on a bait hole, plunking on a weekday, then they are probably an unemployable alcoholic miscreant or a retired dude who enjoys the company of scumbags who shit right where they fish. One trip to a NW hatchery hole and you will never go back unless fishing next to large piles of litter and feces right on the river bank is your kind of fun.

[stuckathuntermtn]

I thought the boundary was the foliage above the high water mark, or something like that?
What is the actual penalty for what you are charged with? Is it a violation, like speeding, or an actual misdemeanor with fines and jail time and having to report it and all that?
I always thought it was more akin to speeding than petty larceny.