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

[dave carothers]

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