Trespassing vidio Watch and discuss

snobuilder

Well-known member
" How many posts are there on this forum every year about trees and fences being damaged in the UP?"

talk is cheap...I always say show me the proof of damage...

"What is the real cost of that to landowners?"...not sure without proof

" Don't you see why they are upset?"....again, talk is cheap.
 

russholio

Well-known member
remember trespassing laws can vary greatly from state to state

And country to country.

Cooler heads always prevail. Remember to apologize, show respect and move on quickly.

About ten years ago a buddy and I were going on a riding trip and looking for the cabin rental place we were staying at. It was on a rural, kinda backwoods road. We saw what we thought was the office, but there was nobody in it and didn't look like there had been for some time, so we kept driving, thinking there was a newer one. Well, the road turned into a private road that was clearly marked "no trespassing". Hmmm. We kept driving, thinking it odd but that maybe since the facility was privately owned, they marked it to keep non-renters or prospective renters out. Well, the road ended in a guy's driveway and he was out working in his shop. Oops. He came out and told us we were trespassing and didn't we see the sign. I explained that I had, and gave him the reason why I kept going but that I was sorry. He kept on with his tirade (no swearing or threat of violence) and I kept quiet, trying to figure out how I was going to get the truck and trailer turned around. After he kept it up, I finally said, calmly but pointedly, "look mister, I made a mistake. I said I'm sorry, and I am. I can't do any more than that." And in a more conciliatory tone, "I know how you feel; I'm a landowner too and I don't like it when people trespass on my property". After that, he softened up a bit and helped us get out. I apologized again and away we went. We did eventually find the cabin.

We haven't had any incidents for several years, but in the past we'd occasionally come across other hunters on our hunting land (bounded on two sides by state land, two sides private land). Obviously, all of us were armed. No swearing, no accusations, no threats of violence, no rifles leveled at the ready. Just a simple "hey, did you guys know you're on private land?" The answer was always "no", of course -- even though our property is marked around its entire perimeter. Nonetheless....."Well, you are. Here's how you can find your way out" and we'd tell them how to get out. That was that. No escalations from either side, no reason to. We have a standing reciprocating agreement with one of our neighboring owners that we will permit tracking a shot deer onto each other's property, as long as the property owner is notified first. Never any issues.

My last story is almost comical....we were at the property one September doing our maintenance for the upcoming hunting season when a group of ATV's came down our road. We stopped them, of course (no swearing or accusations; there may have been weapons since we typically carry while in the woods but they weren't deployed), told them they were trespassing and asked if they hadn't seen the signs. "It's okay", said the leader, "we know the owner, and he gave us permission". "Oh? Who would that be?" asked we. "Ervin _____" he replied. We politely informed him that Ervin (our Uncle Bud) had passed away in 1984 (at least 20 years prior to this incident) and that we had owned it since then and didn't remember giving such permission. They turned around and rode off.

And so end my stories.....back to the spring boredom! :)

- - - Updated - - -

" How many posts are there on this forum every year about trees and fences being damaged in the UP?"

talk is cheap...I always say show me the proof of damage...

"What is the real cost of that to landowners?"...not sure without proof

" Don't you see why they are upset?"....again, talk is cheap.

WHY should a landowner have to prove damage to HIS property in order to keep somebody off of it? Why does it matter if there's damage or if there isnt? Is it not enough for him to simply say "I don't want you on my land"? Please help me....I don't understand the mentality.
 
Last edited:

xcr440

Well-known member
" How many posts are there on this forum every year about trees and fences being damaged in the UP?"

talk is cheap...I always say show me the proof of damage...

"What is the real cost of that to landowners?"...not sure without proof

" Don't you see why they are upset?"....again, talk is cheap.

I've been on sleds my entire life, back into the 60's, and that was brought up MANY times over the years. What damage do sleds actually do? They are probably one of the LEAST invasive off road vehicles. I completely agree with you on that.

Does that have any bearing on this situation? ZERO.
 

russholio

Well-known member
Okay.....I think I understand: the point Snobuilder was trying to make is "if you're claiming you suffered damage, then be able to prove it". If that's the case, I agree and my apologies to Snobuilder. Nonetheless, I still don't think whether a sled/vehicle/person causes damage to property is relevant to the landowner not wanting them on his property. If he doesn't want them there, he doesn't want them there, and that should be enough reason.
 
L

lenny

Guest
I understand your point. And I get your concerns about people whose actions go over the top. I don't think I've sugar coated Ring's actions, or made excuses for his excessive behavior, but at any rate, how much of a stand, pro or con, can we really take on a discussion board?

Enjoy your ride....I wish I had that option! Pity us city-dwelling trolls whose snow is gone and can't even use yard work as an excuse to get outside since nothing is growing. Now the boredom sets in (hence why I've probably spent too much time on this board) :) God, how I hate spring!

for the skidooers- what is the charge for "recreational trespassing", a misdemeanor or a felony ?

for Ringo-what is the charge for damage to private property, what is the charge for assault with a deadly weapon, what is the charge for battery.

So when we watch a video where one group is committing a misdemeanor and the other party is creating a misdemeanor and 2 possible felonies, one would think it is reasonable to discuss the multiple serious charges as serious charges and/or unreasonable behaviors. That's all I am trying to get people to understand here but yet we focus in a unbalanced dialogue . We continue to say both parties acted unreasonable,,and they both did but the loon was way out of control compared to the doo'ers. Honestly, it;s doesn't matter what happened in the past with the land owner, has no bearing on this situation what so ever,,and not even worth mentioning unless we need to show sympathy for the landowner. I do have sympathy for the land owner as it would be frustrating to have people violate your privacy, destroy property and agitate your animals but no judge is going to listen to prior incidents. He will watch the video and listen to both sides and come to a conclusion based upon facts seen in the video and testimony.

Ring clearly wen't over the top when perusing, confronting and assaulting. Sledders showed no aggression or threat but minor defense. Yet we focus most our attention and why ring was mad and it makes no matter why he was mad. Anger is the last thing you want in a confrontation and I commend those of you who express level headedness and diffusing the situation with diplomacy but no doubt they all were at a real crisis and it could have went either way. If the sledders had a weapon and shot Ring their action would have been justified. With no credit to the land owner the situation was diffused but we see little emphasis on Rings actions,,,fact!
 

russholio

Well-known member
Wow Lenny, you must have had a heckuva ride -- you've been gone a long time! I'm envious, indeed.

I see your point in your last post, and I think it's a pretty spot-on analysis. I suspect we're closer in our opinions of the ordeal than either of us realize, just not as close in the way we express them.
 

snobuilder

Well-known member
I've been on sleds my entire life, back into the 60's, and that was brought up MANY times over the years. What damage do sleds actually do? They are probably one of the LEAST invasive off road vehicles. I completely agree with you on that.

Does that have any bearing on this situation? ZERO.

The only bearing it has is that I was responding to a post that said " how many times do we hear of damage to trees and fences"
I believe that on anonymous websites it is easy to give sledders a bad rap and then shrink away without showing proof.

Trespassing is wrong but sometimes it is an accident.
If it goes to charges and court proof must be submitted, and I think this guy was the judge, jury and held the power to be executioner as well and that is way worse than even a jacked up mudder truck in mothers flower bed.
 

wishbone

New member
Russ said
WHY should a landowner have to prove damage to HIS property in order to keep somebody off of it? Why does it matter if there's damage or if there isnt? Is it not enough for him to simply say "I don't want you on my land"? Please help me....I don't understand the mentality.
This is true! When I started this tread I was not expecting this much action. The video was posted on a farm discussion board. I am a lifelong rider, and a farmer who has 2 corridor trails cross my property., Many of the replies I have read here do not bode well for the future of trails. Tell a property owner to get off his high horse. Really? Both parties actions were not good and I hope this never happens again.
Respectfully how much land do any of you guys own? Having thousands of posts on this board does not make you an authority.
 

chords

Active member
I have one boneheaded trespassing story from mid 70s. We were 20 yrs old. NE Lower MI where there is very little public land. When we rode anywhere but the lake, it was on someones ? private property. Miles of 2 tracks and lots of hills and we got to know our way around for miles just going thru the woods. Eventually we would reconize where we were. That year we got an early deep snow. Off we went on our Rupp
sleds tearing up thru the woods. WELL it happen to be Thanksgiving - prime deer hunting and next thing I know we're surrounded by a group of , shall I say very angry hunters - each one with a loaded rifle. We talked our way out of it and rode off only because I knew and worked with 1 of the guys and my cute girlfriend worked at a local bar. Never rode again during deer hunt season.

It was quite common to ride back in the "woods" all the way up thru the 90s until ownership changed and gates and a few remote homes starting popping up. We wernt hurting anything or bothering anyone. Well we did have one guy chase us down, but thats another story.
 
L

lenny

Guest
Russ said
WHY should a landowner have to prove damage to HIS property in order to keep somebody off of it? Why does it matter if there's damage or if there isnt? Is it not enough for him to simply say "I don't want you on my land"? Please help me....I don't understand the mentality.
This is true! When I started this tread I was not expecting this much action. The video was posted on a farm discussion board. I am a lifelong rider, and a farmer who has 2 corridor trails cross my property., Many of the replies I have read here do not bode well for the future of trails. Tell a property owner to get off his high horse. Really? Both parties actions were not good and I hope this never happens again.
Respectfully how much land do any of you guys own? Having thousands of posts on this board does not make you an authority.


I don't think the land owner was on a high horse, I just think because someone trespassed he cannot do what ever he wants. I don't claim to be a authority but I am passionate about things that are principle based and this is one of those things. So because we don;t want to see the landowner take maters into his own hands we make the snowmobile community look bad? Respectfully, help me to understand what you are trying to say,,please.
 
Last edited:

snobuilder

Well-known member
Russ said
WHY should a landowner have to prove damage to HIS property in order to keep somebody off of it? Why does it matter if there's damage or if there isnt? Is it not enough for him to simply say "I don't want you on my land"? Please help me....I don't understand the mentality.
This is true! When I started this tread I was not expecting this much action. The video was posted on a farm discussion board. I am a lifelong rider, and a farmer who has 2 corridor trails cross my property., Many of the replies I have read here do not bode well for the future of trails. Tell a property owner to get off his high horse. Really? Both parties actions were not good and I hope this never happens again.
Respectfully how much land do any of you guys own? Having thousands of posts on this board does not make you an authority.

WHAT?????

As landowner are saying that you want sledders to have permission to pass through your property so if one of them gets off course you can eff em in the ace with yur mighty shotgun?....LOL thanks but no thanks...stick your land up yur...


How would you have handled the situation, wishbone?
 
Last edited:

Firecatguy

New member
I have park behind my house and in the summer the ball fields are packed with kids playing ball......I get balls in my yard alot!!!even caused damage in past!!!!I thinking I will get my gun out this summer, maybe smak a kid or two around!!!screw you kids who do they think they are jumping my fence!!!!maybe even get a bigger dog one that eats kids.........

so if you have a ccw you can walk around threatening people with your gun? on your neighbors land????
 

russholio

Well-known member
so if you have a ccw you can walk around threatening people with your gun? on your neighbors land????

CCW (or CPL, here in MI) has nothing to do with this event. Since it happened in Canada, it's highly unlikely the landowner had one anyhow.

CCW/CPL are meant for self-defense only. They are not meant to give the bearer carte blanche to whip out his/her firearm any time he/she feels like it.
 

Firecatguy

New member
CCW (or CPL, here in MI) has nothing to do with this event. Since it happened in Canada, it's highly unlikely the landowner had one anyhow.

CCW/CPL are meant for self-defense only. They are not meant to give the bearer carte blanche to whip out his/her firearm any time he/she feels like it.


That was my point.....
 

russholio

Well-known member
But it's a seemingly moot point. CCW/CPL has no relevance to this incident, and introducing it into the discussion will only serve to drag the discussion off-course and (possibly) confuse people who are unfamiliar with it as to what its intended purpose is.
 

Firecatguy

New member
oh I am sorry I was replying to this...............and this was a reply to something I said.........hate to take it off course....lol


I keep going back to the poll on the website... Yeah, everyone in the video was not shown in their best light, but at the end of the day the public is siding with the landowner. To me that is the biggest take away we as sledders can get from the incident. If you are trespassing you have no idea what you are going to come across - you are the outsider, NEVER the victim.

This has nothing to do with political correctness. I'm not defending the actions of either really, but I sympathize with the landowner more than the sledders in this case. Plain and simple. How many posts are there on this forum every year about trees and fences being damaged in the UP? What is the real cost of that to landowners? Don't you see why they are upset?

You can get behind your keyboard and try to pontificate about the laws of Saskatchewan and how you would have handled the situation - or even try to apply them to your own state, but remember trespassing laws can vary greatly from state to state so there is no clear cut rule on what each situation dictates (know your state laws). In Wisconsin for example open carry is completely legal - you can carry a gun in the open and if you are doing it when confronting a trespasser that certainly isn't assault with a deadly weapon - obviously kicking the sled isn't good, but I would bet money any DA is going to side with an angry landowner over a trespassing sledder.

But only a fool would ever try to wrestle a gun away from someone after you were just confronted for trespassing on their property. Once you do that anything that happens afterwards is most certainly self defense on the part of the landowner and you the trespasser are SOL. (See George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin if you need convincing).

Cooler heads always prevail. Remember to apologize, show respect and move on quickly.
 
L

lenny

Guest
I have park behind my house and in the summer the ball fields are packed with kids playing ball......I get balls in my yard alot!!!even caused damage in past!!!!I thinking I will get my gun out this summer, maybe smak a kid or two around!!!screw you kids who do they think they are jumping my fence!!!!maybe even get a bigger dog one that eats kids.........

so if you have a ccw you can walk around threatening people with your gun? on your neighbors land????

your analogy is pretty good, lots of similarities. It brings us right to the heart of the matter with no side issues or excuses, well done!

Does not matter who or why people trespass, it's illegal and some will blow a gasket over it and it should be concerning.

I'd dig a mote and throw some alligators and sharks in so when the kids try an get the ball they get eaten up, they would deserve it!
 

russholio

Well-known member
Unless I missed it, I still see no mention of CCW/CPL. I DO see how Blutooth points out (correctly) that laws vary from state to state, and that this event happened in Saskatchewan (Canada), with whose laws most of us are probably unfamiliar. He cites an example of OPEN carry (not concealed) in Wisconsin. OPEN carry is relevant to the incident (even if most of us probably don't know what Saskatchewan's or Canada's open carry laws are). Concealed carry is not an issue in this incident and your hypothetical "so if you have a ccw you can walk around threatening people with your gun? on your neighbors land????" makes no sense here. But to answer it, no, you can't walk around threatening people if you have a CCW/CPL. Not in Michigan, anyhow. And probably not in Canada either, since handguns are prohibited and it's difficult to own one legally.
 
L

lenny

Guest
Unless I missed it, I still see no mention of CCW/CPL. I DO see how Blutooth points out (correctly) that laws vary from state to state, and that this event happened in Saskatchewan (Canada), with whose laws most of us are probably unfamiliar. He cites an example of OPEN carry (not concealed) in Wisconsin. OPEN carry is relevant to the incident (even if most of us probably don't know what Saskatchewan's or Canada's open carry laws are). Concealed carry is not an issue in this incident and your hypothetical "so if you have a ccw you can walk around threatening people with your gun? on your neighbors land????" makes no sense here. But to answer it, no, you can't walk around threatening people if you have a CCW/CPL. Not in Michigan, anyhow. And probably not in Canada either, since handguns are prohibited and it's difficult to own one legally.

it is in a sense because Pat was trying to justify a legality in favor of Mr.Ring so even if it doesn't apply it illustrates that regardless, you cannot assault a person with a gun under Rings circumstances even if you could carry legally. As someone posted earlier, if ring rolled up on the dnr like that he just me be dead but I am sure ring would have cowered and dropped it like a hot potato. So if you are law enforcement or civilian and your life is threatened, it is reasonable to respond accordingly to protecting yourself. To a degree I am exaggerating the issue because Ring IMO was trying to intimidate these guys, at least that's the way it appears to me, although it is a huge risky move and if these was even the slightest bit more of escalation on Rings actions, many people would have been forced to respond, but if it was the law rolling up on ring he would have had maybe,,,and I say maybe a warning before he was flatened.

Good point Russ and firecatguy
 

russholio

Well-known member
it is in a sense because Pat was trying to justify a legality in favor of Mr.Ring so even if it doesn't apply it illustrates that regardless, you cannot assault a person with a gun under Rings circumstances even if you could carry legally.

I don't know as though we can say definitively whether Ring was or wasn't carrying legally. He wasn't carrying concealed, so that's not an issue. We (or at least, I) don't know what Canada's/Sasketchewan's open carry laws are, so he may or may not have been breaking them. I think it is safe to say that he DID assault and batter, and I think it's also safe to say that those actions are as illegal in Saskatchewan/Canada as they are here (though the definitions/requirements may vary).

And I should have clarified: (in Michigan) Whether carrying concealed OR openly, you may not use your firearm to threaten people.

Based on the poll I created, out of 32 voters (admittedly, a small sample) 25 believe that Ring responded inappropriately and only 7 agree with his actions. So far, that would indicate that a pretty large majority disapprove of what he did.
 
Top