Buddy of mine is sueing for time lost/unlawful detainment

[gleaner1]

Awesome!

 

[BARKER]

Hi Guys; The guy is lucky it was not me. I would have hung him for sure especially after what I went through. I also would have reported the Officer for not enforciong the LAW he SWORE to uphold.Thing is that all of here can only wait and watch to see what the final; outcome if this case is. On that point we can only strongly request that HutSiteDigger "PLEASE" keep us informed on this as it develops ok. So HutSiteDigger "PLEASE" keep us informed. THANKS. The suspense is "KILLING" me. !!!

 

[RGINN]

Without being there and not being familiar with your area's legal system, I can only speak in generalities. The DA (who generally decides which cases will be filed) will look at detainer's intent. Did he honestly believe he was defending a friend's property interest and did he use excessive force? An interesting point you brought up was the property owner said detainer had no right to be on the property. You can sue anybody for anything. All I know about the civil case is that the court will want to know in detail, with documentation, how the $3,000 figure was arrived at, so be ready for that. The whole mess could have been handled differently. If detainer was such good buddies with the property owner, why didn't he just call him up and find out if everything was cool? Let us know how this turns out, as the info might be useful to us.

 

[whammy]

Remember that this is a country that awarded an individual a million bucks because they didn't have the common sense to not hold a cup of hot coffee on there lap. I also responded to a call where an individual in a second floor apartment heard a noise, looked out his window and saw someone breaking into his truck. The gent in the apartment stuck his starter pistol out the window and popped off a couple rounds to scare the intruder away, which it did. Upon arrival of my Sgt., I was ordered to arrest the gent in the apartment, which I VERY reluctantly did. I think I would run this by a lawyer and see what his take on this is.

 

[vor]

An attorney would laugh.
V

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using TreasureNet

 

[Davers]

While I have alot of comments about this case, I type waaay too slow & tend to get off trac but IMO The man who stopped him is guilty of false imprisonment , & prob, should have been handled by the LEO at the scene once he found out your buddy [hsd] had written permission ,but one never knows what can happen in our messed up legal system. It also seems when the original landowners buddy saw HEAVY Equipment parked in front of this "historical " property that a phone call to his buddy might have been in order before he started detaining people.

 

[piegrande]

If the person who lied about having control of the property has any sense, he will offer a thousand bucks to settle out of court.

You need to understand many lawyers look at a case not for the facts of the case nor the law, but whether they can get a fortune in legal fees out of it. In this case, he was only asking $3000 so there is no case as far as the attorneys go. That doesn't mean no case; it means the attorneys aren't interested.

You need to understand what sort of person becomes a judge. An attorney once explained it to me. A person who can't make a suitable living as an attorney tries to become a judge. A truly competent attorney who can make a good living as an attorney is not going to set on a bench and listen to perjury all day.

In this case, it doesn't especially matter if he wins a cent. It matters that the jerk learns not to throw his weight around.

 

[BARKER]

HI Folks; Best of intentions or not. The guy who did the detaining because he was supposedly trying to protect his freinds land was also wrong in that he had no legal right to do so. This was NOT HIS LAND.!!! You can only intervene in suich a manner if you see a FELONY being commited.!!! Trespassing is a MISDEMEANOR.!!! Hence it is that the guy did in fact commit Kidnapping, False Arrest and Unlawful Seizure. To me the victim is right to sue. For me, I am not a war monger or something and yes maybe he should be the nice guy and let this guy go. Kicker is from what was stated is that the guy never even apologized. I think that is somethong we all would do after having made such a blunder.He didn't. I know we ALL await the outcome on this one for sure, PEACE:RONB

 

[Unclebuck257]

Having spent 40 plus years working in our legal system, here's my take on this. Would I be PO'd and steaming hot if it was me that was unlawfully detained by that idiot? You bet I would! However we all scream about the idiotic judges with their stupid decisions and ambulance chasing lawyers out there jamming up our legal system. The detainER was wrong, but not acting as a nut case or for malicious reasons and thought he was protecting his friend's property as any of us might have done, minus the forced detaining of course. A simple, "leave the property now" and then calling police would have been what he should have done. The LEO on the scene (when he arrived) had options at his disposal too of course, but I'm sure the MDer himself refused to leave the property because he felt he had authorized permission to be there. Time spent by MDer from that point on was voluntary time spent by MDer awaiting new owners confirmation of his right to be there. It is no one's fault that new owner was not immediately available for contact.

The LEO probably looked at this as a legitamate misunderstanding, considering the facts as layed out, and didn't feel a ticket for anyone was warranted. The judge will probably say that the LEO applied "common sense" to an apparently very heated situation and handled it appropriately, in my humble opinion.

Why detainER didn't immediately call his friend, who he didn't know had recently sold the land, remains unanswered and should have been done too however, in my humble opinion.

The MDer, although he lost use of his very limited time on the sight, in actuality can't prove he lost anything but that time in any court of law, and therefore can't show any monetary damages to back up his $3000.00 claim. Lasting emotional distress worth any money will also be hard to prove on the MDer's part from the facts as laid out, without follow up treatment by MDer with a licensed medical nut cracker.

This is at best a small claims court case and will probably at best, wind up with detainER giving MDer an apology since there was no criminal or malicious intent by detainER.

Don't get me wrong, guys like this detainER drive me crazy too, but I just don't see any real court case in this matter. Of course, I've been wrong before too. Just be thankful no one pulled a weapon and this thing didn't escalate into something much worse.

 

[VERDE]

Hey HutSiteDigger!! Interesting situation!! Bet your friend's attorney makes more off this case than your Buddy does!! He He!! Anyway GOOD HUNTING!! VERDE!!

 

[happycamper08]

In my state there are laws for unlawfully interfering with hunting. Perhaps your state has similar laws that could be applied in this situation. People need to learn to mind there own business, and if they can't do that then at least don't interfere.

 

[Nimocone]

Can't speak for the civil aspects of the scenario, but the criminal parts won't pan out. As long as he can leave on foot, the unlawful detaining or kidnapping won't fly. Now if he was being held down on the ground or in a house, that's a different matter. Intent to harm would also be considered and it sounds like that isn't the case here.

 

[BARKER]

Hi HUT; I think you should let us ALL know how this turns out ok. The suspense is killing us here ok. PEACE:RONB

 

[SilverForBrains]

yep might as well detect until the cops show up!

 

[Frankn]

Hello Barker
Sorry to hear about your episode of being kidnapped and shot at. Unfortunatley that is a bit different from this situation. The officer on the scene used his discretion and let it go (rightfully so imo). You have to look at intent and this guy was just trying to protect his friends property. He did owe the MD an apology though.

People are too quick to sue in this society (not saying you didn't have cause and every right in your situation). This was just a mistake with good intentions. JMO

I think the detainer was dead wrong. His friend no longer owned the property. He in effect had no right to judge the hunters actions. Frank...

 

[DiggityDiggity]

I would have called the cops immediately after the detainer called them on me. Two sets of cops will normally come out. After the detainer's story crumbles, I'd have my cop arrest him for detainment. I think suing is a bit overboard though...there's no possible way that would hold up in court and you'll just be wasting your time. The detainer can just play dumb. Ex: He didnt know his friend sold the property and was just looking out for the best interest of him. Take it as a loss and move on.. Good luck though. Hope the judge sheds a sympathetic tear for your buddy.

 

[vor]

I think the detainer was dead wrong. His friend no longer owned the property. He in effect had no right to judge the hunters actions. Frank...<img src="http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=878339"/>

Mistakes happen. No harm no foul. Let cooler heads prevail.