Mountain man in court

[poptab]

Nah, just a license.

If you don't want to go to jail, don't steal. Doesn't take a village to teach a man that.

Who did he steal from? And what did he steal? Exactly. Did he steal 2 rainbow fish and a salmon? Was he on public or private land? Who specifically is the victim here? Did he steal your fish? Do you have proof of ownership?

Do I have some claim to those 2 rainbow fish? If they are owned by the people then I must have some sort of claim to the fish right?

I have an even better question:
Who's money are we going to use to keep him in jail? Yours? Mine? How much fish is he going to end up eating while in jail?

This is all just a little too absurd ...

 

[Whosyer]

Fish are like deer, they belong to the people of the State. Well.........right up until the point that you hit one with your Buick, then they belong to God.

 

[rambone]

Wow, surprised at the responses here.

lol. I'm not.

 

[sun]

Why do people bother paying for conservation officers to enforce laws if they didn't intend for the laws to be enforced?
Who would argue that conservation officers shouldn't be on the state's payroll doing their job?
While some may sympathize, the guy's problem is that he got caught.
And he has probably been getting away with it for such a long time that the watery fish world finally lodged a complaint.
Maybe he will use a little more stealth in the future.
While in the meantime, he can enjoy some free meals courtesy of the citizens of Montana.

 

[Jludo]

Don't be silly, we need to pay for fishing licenses to cover the cost of the conservation officer to be sure we have our fishing license...

 

[rambone]

Fish are like deer, they belong to the people of the State. Well.........[STRIKE]right up until the point that you hit one with your Buick, then they belong to God.[/STRIKE]

.....right up until the point where the people of the state exercise the right to eat one of them.

 

[phylodog]

Love these threads. Laws and enforcers are unnecessary because no one would take more than they need. People don't need other people telling them what to do. Natural resources should belong to whomever can get them first. A free man should be allowed to do whatever he wants provided he isn't physically hurting anyone.

How very liberal. I wouldn't dare hurt another person and everyone must be like me so I have nothing to fear, guns are evil, unnecessary and should be banned.

The world seen past the end of one's nose is interesting.

 

[Jludo]

How very liberal. I wouldn't dare hurt another person and everyone must be like me so I have nothing to fear, guns are evil, unnecessary and should be banned.

Slight non sequitur

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Who did he steal from?

LOL. The fluid dynamics of INGOtarian property rights.

 

[jbombelli]

LOL. The fluid dynamics of INGOtarian property rights.

Are those anything like the fluid dynamics of INGOpublican rights to protect real estate investment value?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Are those anything like the fluid dynamics of INGOpublican rights to protect real estate investment value?

No.

 

[jbombelli]

No.

Let me guess: The fluid dynamics of the INGOpublican right to use government to protect property value from negative market forces is valid in your mind?

 

[Sgtusmc]

Love these threads. Laws and enforcers are unnecessary because no one would take more than they need. People don't need other people telling them what to do. Natural resources should belong to whomever can get them first. A free man should be allowed to do whatever he wants provided he isn't physically hurting anyone.

How very liberal. I wouldn't dare hurt another person and everyone must be like me so I have nothing to fear, guns are evil, unnecessary and should be banned.

The world seen past the end of one's nose is interesting.

I kinda like these threads too. They tend to increase one's brain housing group activity long enough to ponder into the gray. It is NOT just a black and white world we live in. Laws and enforcers ARE necessary, but to what extent? To the extent of total control of life and liberty? To the total control that guns are unnecessary to this nation's citizens? I'm not saying this guy is right or wrong, I just thought I'd nudge a little conversation about it.

Cory, I think you tend to see through biased eyes anyway. Being a SWAT sniper, you have quite a sense of control in you and your family's lives. Being an asset to law enforcement lends you the feeling of living in the "right", so you HAVE to see things black and white. Otherwise, you're not a team player. As your daughter grows up though, I'm sure things may arise where there are gray areas in her upbringing. It's just essentially keeping an open mind to the dynamics of life here in America.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Being an asset to law enforcement lends you the feeling of living in the "right", so you HAVE to see things black and white.

That's simply not true, and why officers have discretion. They used to say "the only thing black and white in this job is the car". (Yeah, I know, most departments have monotone vehicles now.)

 

[88GT]

Love these threads. Laws and enforcers are unnecessary because no one would take more than they need. People don't need other people telling them what to do. Natural resources should belong to whomever can get them first. A free man should be allowed to do whatever he wants provided he isn't physically hurting anyone.

How very liberal. I wouldn't dare hurt another person and everyone must be like me so I have nothing to fear, guns are evil, unnecessary and should be banned.

The world seen past the end of one's nose is interesting.

Do you think people need to be told what to do? Is telling people what to do enough to make them do it? Why do we need to tell people what to do? Who gets to decide what people need to do so we can tell them what to do? Do we draw a line in telling them what to do? Can we only tell them what to do for certain areas of their lives, or all areas of their lives open to control?

 

[Sgtusmc]

That's simply not true, and why officers have discretion. They used to say "the only thing black and white in this job is the car". (Yeah, I know, most departments have monotone vehicles now.)

I can appreciate what you're saying, but the laws on the books are black and white. If an officer of the law has discretion, how is that discretion definable in a court of law? That said, where does a citizens discretion play into the law, or are citizens not afforded discretion?

EDIT: DISCRETION - "the freedom to decide what should be done in a particular situation."

 

[phylodog]

I kinda like these threads too. They tend to increase one's brain housing group activity long enough to ponder into the gray. It is NOT just a black and white world we live in. Laws and enforcers ARE necessary, but to what extent? To the extent of total control of life and liberty? To the total control that guns are unnecessary to this nation's citizens? I'm not saying this guy is right or wrong, I just thought I'd nudge a little conversation about it.

Cory, I think you tend to see through biased eyes anyway. Being a SWAT sniper, you have quite a sense of control in you and your family's lives. Being an asset to law enforcement lends you the feeling of living in the "right", so you HAVE to see things black and white. Otherwise, you're not a team player. As your daughter grows up though, I'm sure things may arise where there are gray areas in her upbringing. It's just essentially keeping an open mind to the dynamics of life here in America.

I won't dispute seeing things through biased eyes. 15 years of this work has exposed me to the reality of human nature. If there are no limits on resources there are those who would exploit them to extinction. Humans are greedy and self centered by nature and while there are many (still the majority I'd like to believe) who would limit themselves to what is reasonable there are enough who wouldn't to do irreparable harm to these limited resources. Laws such as the requirement for a fishing license are put into place to provide a limit to those who take, take, take and can also provide some guidance to others as to what is considered reasonable.

I see many more shades of grey than I used to and I pride myself on being reasonable. The "throw the baby out with the bath water" attitude towards laws I do not find to be reasonable. I don't need laws to tell me how many deer I can kill in a season or how many fish I can kill in a day; I'm quite capable of only taking what I need without outside influence. I'm not so ignorant as to believe that everyone is like me however and I realize that there are those who would kill for the sake of killing and have no concern for the impact on others.

 

[phylodog]

Do you think people need to be told what to do? Is telling people what to do enough to make them do it? Why do we need to tell people what to do? Who gets to decide what people need to do so we can tell them what to do? Do we draw a line in telling them what to do? Can we only tell them what to do for certain areas of their lives, or all areas of their lives open to control?

I believe many people need to be told what not to do. We (society) get to decide what people should or shouldn't do, it's the basis for laws and how our government is set up to work. The collective decides what is acceptable and the collective elects representatives to take those beliefs and establish them as laws. You may try to twist my words all you want, I am not advocating ruling every aspect of someone's life, far from it. As it relates to the topic at hand, if someone wants to fish on public property the collective has decided that a fishing license is required. Don't want to get one? Don't fish public waters. Don't get one and fish anyway? Suffer the consequences established by society. Don't like the laws as they are written? Gather like minded individuals, make your arguments and get the laws changed.

 

[poptab]

LOL. The fluid dynamics of INGOtarian property rights.

These questions seemed reasonable to me but you only respond with disrespectful snark. How old are you?

 

[Sgtusmc]

These questions seemed reasonable to me but you only respond with disrespectful snark. How old are you?

He's a lawyer. Kirk S. Freeman, look him up.