[meteorite-list] -2 arrested update (Dude-- Where's My Caredition)

From: dave carothers <carothersdl_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 21:57:23 -0400
Message-ID: <01B04A4732924E61B049E4C8682F08B4_at_your291etg47cr>

Hi Steve,

I'll briefly reply in the same manner...

In a message dated 4/2/2009 7:05 PM
MeteorHntr at aol.com writes:

Steve said:

Were they actually burglars, or were they just knocking on her door asking
to use the phone for their broken down car?

I am sure they were probably burglars. But my point is, just because a
newspaper says something, doesn't make it so. Almost EVERY meteorite
story ever
published has minor if not major flaws in them. And these are not
typically
stories where a reporter's bias could be blamed for the bad journalism.
Almost ALL journalism is shotty today. I just don't believe anything in
print,
just because it is in print.

 Maybe Sonny and Mike are lucky to only have to pay $2,000. Maybe they
were
unlucky to have to pay $2,000. Yes, they might have been shot. I like and
respect Sonny and Mike too. I agree, without asking permission, they did
not
belong there.


*******
The point I was making about the landowner and the burglers was to
illustrate that Sonny and Mike (or anyone in a similar position) doesn't
necessarily know the background or local history of the area and what
suspicions and fears may be present, hence, my follow-on about the
possibility of their getting shot. The bottom line is I think we all agree
that getting permission first in the only way to go.

*******

Steve said:

Thanks for the correction Dave. I think I have only seen the phrase "Get
the hell out of Dodge" in old western movies, usually relating to Dodge
City,
Kansas. But arrogant law men are slightly different than judges sitting on
a
bench with a stenographer recording every statement. Besides, is
Hollywood's
perspective always the way it really happens in life?

Of course, IF Mike and Sonny had already made a plea agreement, or simply
plead guilty (whether they really were guilty or not) throwing themselves
at
the mercy of the court, the judge I presume could puff up his chest and say
about anything he wanted.

And, I don't mean to imply that if either of them were arrested again, and
brought before the same judge, that he would not be more strict the second
time
 around. I don't doubt he would throw the book at them.

My preface was that this story seemed a bit fishy to me, that is all.

Do judges in Georgia run for public election? "Re-elect Judge Daniel, he's
tough on space crime!" might be a good campaign slogan.

*******

I've worked with the law enforcement community for 12 years and while the
vast majority are there to serve the public interest, there are those
(police, attorneys, and judges) who abuse their positions to the detriment
of the public. In my previous post, I guess I was surprised by the fact that
you appeard to find it "unusual" for such a comment to be made by a judge.

*******

Steve said:

Dave, with all due respect to you, I like to engage people in
conversations.
 Me doing so with that man had nothing to do with me being arrogant. If
someone has an objection, in sales one learns to flush out those
objections. If
you don't know the objections, then how do you overcome them? Often
times,
people have very valid objections. Other times, they don't.

Unless a person comes out with their excuse, or if one asks, it is hard to
find out why they object. Granted, people lie. Sometimes they will say
they
don't want you to hunt because 23 years ago, a fisherman left a gate open
and
some cows got out. But usually that isn't a valid reason for never letting
anyone ever come on their land again.

Yes, of course, with private property, people don't have to have a reason.
But usually they do have a reason. Unless it is brought out, it is often
hard to rationally talk with someone about a solution.

[snip]

*******

I thank you for the detailed explanation, but I still have issue with your
idea that a land owner would owe you an explanation other than "No" when
asked to search their property. You state above that "Sometimes they will
say they don't want you to hunt because 23 years ago, a fisherman left a
gate open and some cows got out. But usually that isn't a valid reason for
never letting anyone ever come on their land again." That is where the
arrogance appears. If someone left a gate open 23 or 50 years ago and the
property owner doesn't want anyone else to EVER come on the property again.
So be it. You may not like the reason, but who are you to judge the
validity of the decision? You also state "Often times, people have very
valid objections. Other times, they don't." I'll say it again... If you
own the property, you have no obligation to explain why you don't want
someone on your property and you sure don't have to justify or validate any
reason if you decide to provide more than a "NO!" answer.

I agree that conversation is useful, but can you also see that pushing the
envelope and pressing soneone for a "reason" and not to say that you would
actually do this, but potentially argue the validity of the "reason" would
surely sour any land owner.

Regards,

Dave
Received on Thu 02 Apr 2009 09:57:23 PM PDT