5MilesBack
"DADDY"
It all depends on how the law reads, and exactly what the evidence and testimony shows in regards to violating that law or not. That should be a fairly simple concept either way it goes.
Just like airplanes, they should have to stay above a specific distance above the private. We certainly don't need drones buzzing above our properties all the time.If they go so far as to bring in the violation of airspace, there's going to be serious trouble on the horizon for drone pilots....
And commercial aircraft, and communications/navigation satellites, and.....If they go so far as to bring in the violation of airspace, there's going to be serious trouble on the horizon for drone pilots....
I am starting to think they don't want the public listening.
Interesting. I thought they intended on calling the deputy who had stated "corner crossing isnt illegal"They are live again. Defense rested without presenting any witnesses.
I think the state called the deputy as a witness so he was crossed.Interesting. I thought they intended on calling the deputy who had stated "corner crossing isnt illegal"
agreed. easy to arm chair quarterback, and im no lawyer, but I would have simply asked every witness "did my clients ever touch private property?" and in closing say "my clients never once touched private property". I dont know why they are getting so in the weeds and making things so drawn out and complicated... its obvious they were hunting, they killed an elk, so for the defense to say theres no evidence of them ever hunting, is going down the wrong path IMO.The co-council is like listening to paint dry. Should have left it with just the one closing argument.
YepJust hearing silence... guessing the prosecution rested and its now on the jury?