Trespassing = $$$ paid to the landowner?

[BRTreedogs]

Someone walking across my property? Illegal, yes. Damage? Probably not.

I'd feed em to Sadie.

That's theft, not damage.

To me, someone knowingly trespassing across my property, is the same as kicking in my front door and walking inside my home.

This is mine, you are not supposed to be here.
And I would deal with them most likely very similarly.

 

[wind gypsy]

Whips out the checkbook, and asks "How much is this going to cost to make it go away?"

Sounds a lot like paying a trespass fee only its after the perp has been busted acting in bad faith.

 

[7RemMag]

So what’s the problem?
Why shouldn’t the land owner be compensated?

If someone ran off the road through your fence and you’re animals got out , you would just be like yeah cool, don’t pay for any of that????

According to this article, that didn’t occur. If it did occur, then this article is a misleading piece of garbage.

If that were true in this case, I’d certainly think there would have been other charges/penalties than those listed.

Obvious you don’t think someone trespassing across you’re property as damage?

What if they went in your house?
What if they jumped in you sxs and used it to pack the elk out?


Its the owners private property.
My property is the biggest investment I’ll ever make in life, I’ll work my entire life in an attempt to pay for it. I sure a shit don’t expect a single sole to ever set foot on it without my permission.

If they did any of those things, then it would seem fit to me that criminal proceedings be carried out and respective charges/penalties administered.

I certainly would think that grand theft auto and breaking and entering are slightly different, more serious charges than simply trespassing on one’s land. In fact, I’m not a lawyer(Where’s Q_Sertorius at?) but I believe that the judicial system of this country, as flawed as it may be, treats it quite differently.

The most likely scenario here is that it has little or nothing to do with righting a wrong or any sense of justice. Rather, the landowner had an opportunity to line his own pockets and he did just that.

 

[Customweld]

Sounds a lot like paying a trespass fee only its after the perp has been busted acting in bad faith.

For sure. I have a contractor that does a lot of work for me and that is his question every time he messes up.

 

[wind gypsy]

According to this article, that didn’t occur. If it did occur, then this article is a misleading piece of garbage.

If that were true in this case, I’d certainly think there would have been other charges/penalties than those listed.

If they did any of those things, then it would seem fit to me that criminal proceedings be carried out and respective charges/penalties administered.

I certainly would think that grand theft auto and breaking and entering are slightly different, more serious charges than simply trespassing on one’s land. In fact, I’m not a lawyer(Where’s Q_Sertorius at?) but I believe that the judicial system of this country, as flawed as it may be, treats it quite differently.

The most likely scenario here is that it has little or nothing to do with righting a wrong or any sense of justice. Rather, the landowner had an opportunity to line his own pockets and he did just that.

Dont know the specifics in this case, i didn't see how much $ the landowner is getting and dont know if he his land would be desirable enough to fetch trespass fees - BUT, i wouldn't be surprised if the fees he got in penalties were less than possible trespass fees.

Id be more surprised if the landowner was compensated enough that he would actually choose to have those people trespass to get legal damages if he could go back and choose.

 

[yfarm]

We have had intentional trespassing for years by hunters on our posted farm. Call the sheriff, deputies will not cite the trespassers. If landowner wants charges, they have to file and appear in court as witness to the act even if leo is present and witness to the act. This requires several trips to the courthouse over several days. What is that time worth? Polk County, Iowa.

 

[WeiserBucks]

Dont know the specifics in this case, i didn't see how much $ the landowner is getting and dont know if he his land would be desirable enough to fetch trespass fees - BUT, i wouldn't be surprised if the fees he got in penalties were less than possible trespass fees.

Id be more surprised if the landowner was compensated enough that he would actually choose to have those people trespass to get legal damages if he could go back and choose.

Pure assumption based on the article but it sounds like 1 person killed an elk legally on public and then they all trespassed to retrieve it.

 

[7RemMag]

Dont know the specifics in this case, i didn't see how much $ the landowner is getting and dont know if he his land would be desirable enough to fetch trespass fees - BUT, i wouldn't be surprised if the fees he got in penalties were less than possible trespass fees.

Id be more surprised if the landowner was compensated enough that he would actually choose to have those people trespass to get legal damages if he could go back and choose.

You might have a point there. That to me indicates a shortcoming of the legal system that should be fixed though.

The whole scenario just has a “dirty” feel to it to me. I guess it is what it is, and I go great lengths to not find myself in this sort of situation, but it makes me think a little about what kind of precedent this sets and what message does it send when a private party is able to essentially circumvent legal proceedings to profit? Where does the line get drawn here?

On the other hand, it doesn’t really matter what those on the outside think about the deal so long as the parties involved are satisfied. Maybe the guys who settled up really like to hunt and are glad they get to keep their license while their buddy sits it out for a year. I can certainly relate to that sentiment.

 

[wind gypsy]

You might have a point there. That to me indicates a shortcoming of the legal system that should be fixed though.

The whole scenario just has a “dirty” feel to it to me. I guess it is what it is, and I go great lengths to not find myself in this sort of situation, but it makes me think a little about what kind of precedent this sets and what message does it send when a private party is able to essentially circumvent legal proceedings to profit? Where does the line get drawn here?

How do you even know if they are profiting off it when their time is taken into account?

If I owned a store and caught someone stealing and that person instead offered to pay me more than the value of stolen goods to avoid charges being pressed, i dont see a big issue with the victim making the choice to accept the money or press charges.

 

[7RemMag]

How do you even know if they are profiting off it when their time is taken into account?

If I owned a store and caught someone stealing and that person instead offered to pay me more than the value of stolen goods to avoid charges being pressed, i dont see a big issue with the victim making the choice to accept the money or press charges.

I have a bad habit of editing my posts after the fact when I think of something to add. This thread is pretty hot and you were quick. You quoted my comment and it’s missing a part that was added later. My mistake.

I don’t know that they’re profiting from it because I don’t know the specifics of the situation. I just have a sneaking suspicion that this was an instance that came awfully close to crossing the line of extortion. Or at least that’s the look of it from my perspective. Whether it’s true or not I don’t know.

For what it’s worth, In your scenario, I wouldn’t take the money from the accused thief. I’d allow them to see the consequences of stealing. Whether it’s out of spite, foolishness on my part, pride, or what exactly I’m not sure. That difference which I cannot properly describe between you and some of the others here and myself is probably the root of the disagreement here as well as why the article doesn’t sit well with me and I do not at all mean that in a condescending way. It just is what it is.

 

[mt terry d]

If I decide to trespass it'll be in a National Guard helicopter.

 

[wind gypsy]

I have a bad habit of editing my posts after the fact when I think of something to add. This thread is pretty hot and you were quick. You quoted my comment and it’s missing a part that was added later. My mistake.

I don’t know that they’re profiting from it because I don’t know the specifics of the situation. I just have a sneaking suspicion that this was an instance that came awfully close to crossing the line of extortion. Or at least that’s the look of it from my perspective. Whether it’s true or not I don’t know.

For what it’s worth, In your scenario, I wouldn’t take the money from the accused thief. I’d allow them to see the consequences of stealing. Whether it’s out of spite, foolishness on my part, pride, or what exactly I’m not sure. That difference which I cannot properly describe between you and some of the others here and myself is probably the root of the disagreement here as well as why the article doesn’t sit well with me and I do not at all mean that in a condescending way. It just is what it is.

Yeah. It's just an incredibly vague article and we're probably all inserting our own bias/experience/opinion into it without knowing if it is even applicable to the specific case.

 

[BLJ]

To me, someone knowingly trespassing across my property, is the same as kicking in my front door and walking inside my home.

This is mine, you are not supposed to be here.
And I would deal with them most likely very similarly.

Assuming it’s not a concern but do you think that would be handled the same in court?

 

[BRTreedogs]

Assuming it’s not a concern but do you think that would be handled the same in court?

That depends.
With how many crazy people there are in the world these days.
How is anyone supposed to determine how I actually felt about my personal safety.

Is encountering an armed trespasser in the woods perceivably less than of a threat than someone entering your home?

You don’t know there there to retrieve an elk.
One of the first steps to armed entry to your home is armed trespassing across your property.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I don't understand why anyone is outraged by how this was handled. They intentionally trespassed. They knew it was private property. They entered it without permission. Actual damage isn't required to prove trespass. That's all that needs to be proved. And even unintentional trespass can be charged.

Paying restitution to the injured party is perhaps not an everyday occurrence, but it seems far more just to me than paying a fine to the state. There's no element of extortion there. Restitution usually occurs in theft cases - it was fairly common in my military practice that the court could order restitution or I, as the prosecutor, might work out a plea deal whereby the defendant paid restitution to the injured party in lieu of a fine.

 

[WeiserBucks]

I don't understand why anyone is outraged by how this was handled.

There's zero outrage. Those of us in Idaho aren't used to seeing this type of result from a hunter trespass case.

 

[RS_Non-Res]

I got a few thoughts on this:
1) Property Rights are so fundamental that most of the US Bill of Rights are founded on them. Without property rights, there is no need for the second amendment. The damage done by trespassers is not measured in foot prints, injured livestock, or days-to-deal-with-it, the damage is measure in mere presence, and the damage done by trespassing is also done to the state in addition to the landowner. That's why it's a crime and the state has a right to prosecute over and above any compensation a landowner can gain through a civil suit.

2) Sometimes the state facilitates an equitable agreement between parties. For example, if I wreck someone's car in a traffic accident the state often has a process whereby the injured party can "drop charges" if my insurance makes them whole. The damage gets repaired, I don't get a ticket/points, insurance company pays, my rates go up. It's sort of the way well-meaning citizens would work things out together in the absence of law enforcement. In this case the malicious intent was clear and they got their tickets in addition to making the landowner whole.

3) My state explicitly says in the hunting rules, that dead animal on private land is not a justification for trespass. Permission from the land owner must be acquired. There is no right to retrieve. If permission is not granted, you can keep hunting b/c the tag was not filled.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

There's zero outrage. Those of us in Idaho aren't used to seeing this type of result from a hunter trespass case.

Maybe not you, but you have folks in this thread calling it extortion.

 

[BRTreedogs]

According to Wyoming they wouldn’t be considered hunting anymore since the elk were already dead.

So it’s just armed trespassing at that point.

 

[BLJ]

Paying restitution to the injured party is perhaps not an everyday occurrence, but it seems far more just to me than paying a fine to the state. There's no element of extortion there. Restitution usually occurs in theft cases - it was fairly common in my military practice that the court could order restitution or I, as the prosecutor, might work out a plea deal whereby the defendant paid restitution to the injured party in lieu of a fine.

In the case stated in the OP what would be considered “injured”, “injury”, or “injuries”?

The act of trespassing?

And I understand that may be a case to case basis.

Serious question. Thanks.