Freak's charged with felony

[Jake Larsen]

I am really conflicted by this stance on private property. It seems like a very entitled way of thinking. Similar to guys who think just because they grew up hunting a particular piece of property have the right to continue to do so if it changes ownership.

Agree. It’s like saying “well because your house didn’t have a “do not enter” sign on it, I just went on in and helped myself to your refrigerator”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PMcGee]

If he had permission, then there are no charges.

Evidently the landowner disagrees with his assessment.

That’s what I figured. He says the officer didn’t check before filling the charges. Seems to me it would be thrown out by now if that was the case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[mtwarden]

That’s what I figured. He says the officer didn’t check before filling the charges. Seems to me it would be thrown out by now if that was the case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Yup exactly- on top of that, after the initial charges, they added the unlawful possession felony charge- not going to do that w/o the landowner saying he didn't have permission

 

[TheTone]

A gift certificate to his mother is law’s restaurant in another state is quite the gift. What a dork

 

[BRTreedogs]

There are a myriad of situations where "trespassing" is not a moral issue in the western U.S. Where you live it's probably different. Out here, we have miles of unposted open spaces that are owned my huge corporate ranches, railroads, etc... surrounded by public land. Some of it is way up in the high mountains. Poaching on someone's 100 acre ranch is not the same as walking through a piece of corporate land, which isn't being used nor occupied, to access public. I think there's a much more important moral issue with land ownership with us selling farm land to China, not some dude shed hunting on an ambiguous piece of corporate property. I'm actually in favor of taking away corporate ranch land and giving it back to the public. Some of these companies own "too much" land out west. That's my opinion though. Slippery slope and all that, but some of these welfare ranchers shouldn't own as much as they do. Eminent domain that shit back to us. Our gov't can just print money to pay them for it.

You are 100% wrong.
Railroad property is private and it is trespassing.
Only exceptions are a crossing at grade, and buying a ticket to ride a commuter train.

And at any time the RR has the ability to revoke.

Get caught on RR property with a firearm. I dare ya.

 

[TheTone]

You are 100% wrong.
Railroad property is private and it is trespassing.
Only exceptions are a crossing at grade, and buying a ticket to ride a commuter train.

And at any time the RR has the ability to revoke.

Get caught on RR property with a firearm. I dare ya.

Even abandoned ones? There are miles and miles of abandoned rail lines around me, tracks are gone so now they’re basically just a gravel road. Tons and tons of atv use on them including during hunting seasons

 

[DAOutfitters208]

Yup exactly- on top of that, after the initial charges, they added the unlawful possession felony charge- not going to do that w/o the landowner saying he didn't have permission

But he gave him a Nalgene and a gift certificate like the official Idaho press release said! Of course he has permission!

 

[BRTreedogs]

Even abandoned ones? There are miles and miles of abandoned rail lines around me, tracks are gone so now they’re basically just a gravel road. Tons and tons of atv use on them including during hunting seasons

Officially yes.
It is private property plain and simple. They could charge anyone and everyone with felony crimes trespass with a firearm any time they wanted.

There may be an exception where they have donated it to the local county etc etc. For a trail or something. Or it may physically appear to be railroad but not actually owned any more.. But if the rail road is still the deeded owner.

The railroad may not typically mess with stuff like this because the cost just isn't worth it but just piss someone off.

I know someone that was simply using the Right of way road to access a piece of public.
but guess what, the local manager hunted there to. Took 2 years to get his job back and a plea bargain to get out of the criminal charges.

Idk what makes anyone think just because they are a corporation or not using it that its ok just to do whatever you want?
Just victim mindset of the man holding you down?

Can I just start living in an un used room in your house if I want?

Can I plant a garden on an unused 1/2 acre on the back of your property?

Not saying most people can't get away with it most of the time. But it is absolutely illegal.
And a RR officer is one of the most powerful officers in the country.
They are not subject to any type of jurisdiction and can do traffic stops etc etc. They are legally allowed to do more then most any other type of officer.

 

[trazerr]

I did watch it. He says he had permission. Has pictures with the landowner and the landowner is related to one of his employees.
Sounds kind of fishy.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I finally watched it myself. Like others have said how in the world did it get this far if what he says actually happened? Are there multiple landowners for this property and they all weren't on the same page?? 2+2 is not adding up to 4 still...

Really curious how this will turn out.

 

[338maker]

I understand when people get too excited when they see a giant and do something dumb (not saying I agree with it).

I don't understand why someone who has killed a bunch of animals, and I'm assuming much bigger bucks, would do something like this for a 160" buck. Seems really dumb.

Because they super stars dude!!! and feel entitled and above all us mere mortals!!

 

[Bowhunting WI]

Before I begin, I want to be clear, as it pertains to MF’s current trespassing case… I have no idea what animal he killed or its size as I’ve watched only one of the MF YouTube videos (years ago) and vowed never to watch anything that group of individuals ever puts out for the world to see. Additionally, anytime I see another human wearing any MF merch or using their bino harness, I immediately think less of them as I don’t understand how anyone could support “hunters” who hold clicks/views/monetary gain to a higher standard than the game they pursue.

However, in reading this thread, it has me thinking... what if MF asked the landowner for permission and was granted permission via a verbal agreement or handshake only? Then said landowner found out he shot a “big deer” and then changed his mind, thus pressing charges? I’m not saying that’s what happened, but could it have?

As this is not the first time MF has faced trespassing charges, I’m going to go ahead and assume he didn’t have permission. But… perhaps we can use this as a good reminder: If you get permission to hunt a piece of private, make sure you have it in writing, or record the landowner giving you permission with your phone. It’s always better to CYA and make sure you can prove you’re in the right than hoping someone isn’t going to screw you over after you’ve killed an animal.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

Before I begin, I want to be clear, as it pertains to MF’s current trespassing case… I have no idea what animal he killed or its size as I’ve watched only one of the MF YouTube videos (years ago) and vowed never to watch anything that group of individuals ever puts out for the world to see. Additionally, anytime I see another human wearing any MF merch or using their bino harness, I immediately think less of them as I don’t understand how anyone could support “hunters” who hold clicks/views/monetary gain to a higher standard than the game they pursue.

However, in reading this thread, it has me thinking... what if MF asked the landowner for permission and was granted permission via a verbal agreement or handshake only? Then said landowner found out he shot a “big deer” and then changed his mind, thus pressing charges? I’m not saying that’s what happened, but could it have?

As this is not the first time MF has faced trespassing charges, I’m going to go ahead and assume he didn’t have permission. But… perhaps we can use this as a good reminder: If you get permission to hunt a piece of private, make sure you have it in writing, or record the landowner giving you permission with your phone. It’s always better to CYA and make sure you can prove you’re in the right than hoping someone isn’t going to screw you over after you’ve killed an animal.

As I understand it he had permission to hunt a certain portion of this landowners property, but then decided to hunt a different section he was specifically told to stay out of.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Andrew12gauge]

That video on insta was a joke, “let me tell you a little about Idaho trespass laws” proceeds to read off a couple highlighted sections about how to ask permission but absolutely nothing about the actual law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cuerro viejo]

As I understand it he had permission to hunt a certain portion of this landowners property, but then decided to hunt a different section he was specifically told to stay out of.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

that makes more sense.

 

[87TT]

A) in Idaho you have to have WRITTEN permission. B) He was told NOT to hunt that area by the landowner and only given permission to cross a different section to get to public but not to hunt it.

 

[PMcGee]

I finally watched it myself. Like others have said how in the world did it get this far if what he says actually happened? Are there multiple landowners for this property and they all weren't on the same page?? 2+2 is not adding up to 4 still...

Really curious how this will turn out.

Oh I agree


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Andrew12gauge]

A) in Idaho you have to have WRITTEN permission. B) He was told NOT to hunt that area by the landowner and only given permission to cross a different section to get to public but not to hunt it.

You don’t have to have written permission, it says you should get written permission or another form of permission. Also even if the landowner gives written permission they may revoke that permission at any time, so to me verbal permission is good enough


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheTone]

A) in Idaho you have to have WRITTEN permission. B) He was told NOT to hunt that area by the landowner and only given permission to cross a different section to get to public but not to hunt it.

But, but, but he’s got some many cheerleaders and other influencers sticking up for him that this one short video has to be the truth right?!?

 

[nobody]

You don’t have to have written permission, it says you should get written permission or another form of permission. Also even if the landowner gives written permission they may revoke that permission at any time, so to me verbal permission is good enough


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NOT defending Muley Freak in the slightest, can't stand him. My wife got me a couple of his T-Shirts a couple years ago on sale at Al's sporting goods and I knew nothing of him. So I went home and watched a couple of his videos and ended up junking the shirts. Want nothing to do with Eric.

That said, I think written permission should ALWAYS be required. It leaves a paper trail for all to have a copy of. But at the same time, if written permission is required to hunt, then a landowner should have to issue a written revocation of that permission. If it's in black and white, it's a contractual agreement, period. In order to terminate the contract, both parties should be required to meet and sign the new agreement revoking the permission. Then it eliminates the "he said/she said" issues that arise.

Again, not defending MF Eric, and I have nothing against private landowners. My in-laws own 8 sections in Montana and fight trespassers big time, so I know it's a common issue. But having everything in writing can protect everyone's hind end at the end of the day.

 

[realunlucky]

NOT defending Muley Freak in the slightest, can't stand him. My wife got me a couple of his T-Shirts a couple years ago on sale at Al's sporting goods and I knew nothing of him. So I went home and watched a couple of his videos and ended up junking the shirts. Want nothing to do with Eric.

That said, I think written permission should ALWAYS be required. It leaves a paper trail for all to have a copy of. But at the same time, if written permission is required to hunt, then a landowner should have to issue a written revocation of that permission. If it's in black and white, it's a contractual agreement, period. In order to terminate the contract, both parties should be required to meet and sign the new agreement revoking the permission. Then it eliminates the "he said/she said" issues that arise.

Again, not defending MF Eric, and I have nothing against private landowners. My in-laws own 8 sections in Montana and fight trespassers big time, so I know it's a common issue. But having everything in writing can protect everyone's hind end at the end of the day.

So written permission would be good until revoked? Seems like extra burden placed on the land owner.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk