Hunter Harrassment Help

[not on the rug]

That rarely happens.  And if it does, it's and immediate arrest and incarceration.  Because it is retaliatory and they destroyed property, bail gets set very high.  It's a whole new world of hurt for the perpetrator.

 

In additional to criminal charges he can then sue for damages in civil court.  So these folks not only get a free trip to jail, but they can lose all of their savings in the process.

 

And before you tell me that they may cause bodily harm, that is extremely rare.  The majority of people don't want issues with law enforcement, and those that do end up regretting it.

Sounds like you've been down this road before.  Hopefully not as a perpetrator...

[Haskell_Hunter]

Sounds like you've been down this road before.  Hopefully not as a perpetrator...

 

The less you know, the safer I am.

[not on the rug]

The less you know, the safer I am.

Says the guy who can hack in to anyone's life...

[A&N_Hunter]

"Filing a complaint is a good thing.  It puts people on notice that if you persist with your behavior, it's been documented, you've been warned, and there is very little you can do in front of a judge to get any kind of compassion​"

 

​Filing a complaint MAY be a good thing.. But then again it may not do a dam thing.. U can do all the documenting and reporting all U want too.. Give them a thousand warnings and still come up empty handed after a REAL trial.. 

 

I have several issues with the OPs alleged HH

 

1).. An adult running their hands thru a scrape is NOT HH.. Who's to say that scrape belongs to a hunter or anyone else for that matter?.. Maybe she was just investigating, curious, tracking, lost her wedding ring in it and was trying to find it.. Isn't it Public property?.. 

 

2).. What proof does the OP have that the dogs chased his wife up a tree?.. His wifes sworn testimony?.. ...Well, the dogs owner might swear the dogs were in the house at the same time the wifes swears the dogs were on her a$$.. Who is the Judge to believe?.. I'll tell you who he will believe.. NEITHER!!

 

3).. The OP MAY have photos of the ATV's but, do the photos have an unmistakably recognizable face on them.. if not then whos to say who was driving them?.. Are the photos date and time stamped?.. If not then whos to say exactly when those photos were taken?.

 

4)..Oh the OP has photos of dogs chasing dear.. Slam dunk right?..   .. All dogs chase dear.. how is a natural K9 act equate to HH.. And how can you prove the dogs on your camera are the same dogs owned by the suspect?.. Can u get a DNA sample from a photo?..

 

Now I don't want to discourage anyone from filing a complaint if they feel they are being wronged.. I do it all the time.. I just wiped my butt with a doctors head in court last month because he tried to over charge me.. that SCUMBAG!!... But at the same time anyone who goes into a trial thinking they have a "slam dunk" case because they have what they think is rock solid evidence MAY be in for a not so pleasant surprise.. U may make yourself look stupid... Believe it or not, its happened to me a few times.. 

 

 

1. Yes, it is public property... Bare hands in the the scrape that has a trail camera directly on it? Highly doubtful for pure coincidence. But ok.. she had dogs with her... maybe picking up dog poop? Bare handed with no recepticle for dog waste...hrmm

 

2. Yes, it would be wifes swarn tesitmony... PRoperty owner would claim dogs were in house, however, thats where the trail camera directly on the stand would prove the dogs where there while wife was climbing ;-)... visual evidence.

 

3. All photos are time stamped. All ATVs pictured are with clear faces of the residents. All ATVs have been witnessed and documented with the County Rangers who can testify that these residents have admitted to use and ownership of said ATVs.. :-)

 

4. Proof is the written report already on file with the COunty Rangers as they have witnessed said dogs loose in action on the property and have previsouly walked them back to the residents and given them several verbal warnings. All on record and acknowledged using my photographed evidence..

 

I appreciate your points, however, facts I feel, in this case, plus reports already on file with county rangers, would be a close to a slam-dunk..I hope.

Edited November 9, 2017 by A&N_Hunter

[Axiom]

1. Yes, it is public property... Bare hands in the the scrap that has a trail camera directly on it? Highly doubtful for pure coincidence. But ok.. she had dogs with her... maybe picking up dog poop? Bare handed with no recepticle for dog waste...hrmm

 

​​As far as I know there is no law forbidding the public from putting their hands in a deer scrape.. Your case is about HH.. You don't own that scrape.. It belongs to the Public

 

2. Yes, it would be wifes swarn tesitmony... PRoperty owner would claim dogs were in house, however, thats where the trail camera directly on the stand would prove the dogs where there while wife was climbing ;-)... visual evidence.

 

​​Is your wife in the same Photo as the dogs.. do u have proof that the incident took place exactly where u claim the photo's were taken??.. And even if so, how does the judge know  your wife didn't coerce the dogs over to her stand?. Maybe she just wanted to pet them.. U know how women are, right?.. And how does dogs in a photo with your wife equate to HH?.. What proof do you have the dogs owner intentionally let the dogs run free while you are out hunting  so they would chase all the deer away? Lots of people, me included let their dogs run free.. And I certainly don't do it to harass anyone.. Ok the dogs are suppose to be on a leash.. But that isn't what you are in court for.. You're there for HH

 

3. All photos are time stamped. All ATVs pictured are with clear faces of the residents. All ATVs have been witnessed and documented with the County Rangers who can testify that these residents have admitted to use and ownership of said ATVs.. :-)

 

​​Ok, maybe they violated a city or county ordinance.. Where they actively riding in circles around your stand while you were in it?.. if not, probably no HH

 

4. Proof is the written report already on file with the COunty Rangers as they have witnessed said dogs loose in action on the property and have previsouly walked them back to the residents and given them several verbal warnings. All on record and acknowledged using my photographed evidence..

 

​​Ok, maybe the Rangers have adequate proof of some violations ( and I only say that in a hypothetical way ) .. But u are talking about taking them to court for HH... And it doesn't look like u have ANY proof... 

 

I appreciate your points, however, facts I feel, in this case, plus reports already on file with county rangers, would be a close to slam-dunk..

 

​​slam dunk  you say?..  lol.. that's what a lot of first timers think...then they get a wake up call during trial....rookie

 

[A&N_Hunter]

1. Yes, it is public property... Bare hands in the the scrap that has a trail camera directly on it? Highly doubtful for pure coincidence. But ok.. she had dogs with her... maybe picking up dog poop? Bare handed with no recepticle for dog waste...hrmm

 

​​As far as I know there is no law forbidding the public from putting their hands in a deer scrape.. Your case is about HH.. You don't own that scrape.. It belongs to the Public

  

    - - Yes, of course it is public property, we know that. Putting hands in a deer scrape to wipe aware or tamper with, however, can still be a viable aruguement. As a scrape we created, one can argue that is has become real property. The tampering of said property, whether or not it is on public or private land, can still be argued as an attempt of destruction. So yeah, this can be an arguement. Whether or not it will stick, depends on the judge and his interpretation.. With all the previosuly interactions with the County Rangers, they will already be shown in a negative perspective..

 

2. Yes, it would be wifes swarn tesitmony... PRoperty owner would claim dogs were in house, however, thats where the trail camera directly on the stand would prove the dogs where there while wife was climbing ;-)... visual evidence.

 

​​Is your wife in the same Photo as the dogs.. do u have proof that the incident took place exactly where u claim the photo's were taken??.. And even if so, how does the judge know  your wife didn't coerce the dogs over to her stand?. Maybe she just wanted to pet them.. U know how women are, right?.. And how does dogs in a photo with your wife equate to HH?.. What proof do you have the dogs owner intentionally let the dogs run free while you are out hunting  so they would chase all the deer away? Lots of people, me included let their dogs run free.. And I certainly don't do it to harass anyone.. Ok the dogs are suppose to be on a leash.. But that isn't what you are in court for.. You're there for HH

 

   --- Again, open to arguement and interpretation. Previous admission by the resident that they will run the dogs while there are hunters because they feel its "their property" and "they are not doing anything wrong". Plus we have a fresh video from this morning, recorded while hunting, of the one dog literally running a doe off the property. Again, arguable and completely up to a judge's interpretation.

 

3. All photos are time stamped. All ATVs pictured are with clear faces of the residents. All ATVs have been witnessed and documented with the County Rangers who can testify that these residents have admitted to use and ownership of said ATVs.. :-)

 

​​Ok, maybe they violated a city or county ordinance.. Where they actively riding in circles around your stand while you were in it?.. if not, probably no HH

 

  --- Last I checked, the dont need to be running circles directly under my stand. That would be clear cut, obviosuly. But still, arguable. Especially after multiply warnings from the Rangers. Again, up to a judge's interpretation of the law.

 

4. Proof is the written report already on file with the COunty Rangers as they have witnessed said dogs loose in action on the property and have previsouly walked them back to the residents and given them several verbal warnings. All on record and acknowledged using my photographed evidence..

 

​​Ok, maybe the Rangers have adequate proof of some violations ( and I only say that in a hypothetical way ) .. But u are talking about taking them to court for HH... And it doesn't look like u have ANY proof... 

 

    --- Rangers have enough proof to do what they need to do. Their proof will only help me as there have been documented incidents with these people. Harder for them to play innocent and harder for them to prove they arent harrassing hunters with all of that against them..

 

I appreciate your points, however, facts I feel, in this case, plus reports already on file with county rangers, would be a close to slam-dunk..

 

​​slam dunk  you say?..  lol.. that's what a lot of first timers think...then they get a wake up call during trial....rookie

  -- I say close to a slam-dunk.. i hope... I hope because at the end of the day... its the judge's interpretation of the law that will either help you or hurt you, no matter how much evidence you have in your favor (case in point...my 5YO nephew's mother...who has a fresh ruling of child abuse against him, was then granted more custodial time of him. Judge gave two shits less about the child abuse...)

 

So I'm prepared to make a stand and thats all I can do. The rest is up to the judge.

 

My post was not open to scrutiny, especially as you have no clue to the whole story (which is now several years in the making). I gave a very brief description. My goal was to obtain from someone who's been through this process, to give me a heads up what to expect as they previously encountered it.

 

rookie?... I assume you're a top A lawyer?

Edited November 9, 2017 by A&N_Hunter

[gregtpal]

Axiom is mostly correct, especially on #1. There is no way that is illegal unless intent to harass could be proven. 2-4 would not be enough alone but taken together along with ranger testimony, they might be sufficient. Slam dunk? No way!

[A&N_Hunter]

I obviously would subpoena the rangers and their reports... not stupid.

 

Again.. I would be hopefuly to be close to a slam dunk as HH is beyond ridiculously hard to prove.. well aware of that... AGAIN... arguable points that are all up to interpretation.... AGAIN... looking for someone who has been through the full process, not everyones own interpretation based on bits of information.

 

Not sure why we are having trouble with this post... My one post was clear... Looking for someone who has been through the whole process...that's all.

[Haskell_Hunter]

Okay, all you armchair lawyers, let's get a few things straight.

 

1. It's a criminal offense, not a civil offense.  The complainant does not need to show any proof, that's not their burden.  Criminal complaints are investigated by law enforcement.  If the officers doing the investigation feel they have enough evidence for a case, they are the ones who then move forward to citing the offenders and moving forward with a criminal complaint.  All A&H needs to do is provide enough initial evidence to law enforcement for them to start their investigation.
2. Since the offenders have been warned before and continue to violate the law, and law enforcement already has this documented, it will most certainly be investigated and referred to a prosecutor.  A&H's and his wife may not need to testify at all.  They will give statements to law enforcement and the prosecution will use those statements as evidence against the offenders.  That's the way these kinds of complaints move through the system.
3. The "he said-she said" part of a criminal trial is between the offender and law enforcement.  So for those of you concerned that the evidence is too ambiguous, you probably haven't been in a criminal trial to see how credible law enforcement is versus the offender; especially since law enforcement has a good amount of evidence already.  Oh, and you can't "settle" in criminal court when you realize you're screwed.

Most of the examples being used by the naysayers are civil cases, and civil court is far different than criminal court.  You cannot compare the two at all.

 

If you've never been dragged in front of a judge as a defendant against a prosecutor and law enforcement (been there!), you have no idea what you're talking about.  It makes a lasting impression on most people when the state gets serious about enforcing their laws.

[Kayak Ken]

You could always pull out your phone and snap pictures of them and the dogs in an obnoxious way. Then mail them certified to them. That should scare them enough into not doing it anymore. I would wear my Go Pro on my head and record walking to my stand in case this happens again.

 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Axiom]

"As a scrape we created, one can argue that is has become real property".

 

   ​... kicking up dirt on PUBLIC LAND...    ​.. and U think it can be argued that it has become real property?        

 

Good luck with that one buddy..  

 

 

"I checked, the dont need to be running circles directly under my stand. That would be clear cut, obviosuly. But still, arguable"

 

​Yes.. And that, if I had proof, I MIGHT consider a slam dunk case.. but as U point out, its still arguable though.. and the out come u can never be certain of.

 

" I hope because at the end of the day... its the judge's interpretation of the law that will either help you or hurt you, no matter how much evidence you have in your favor​"

 

​EXACTLY!!!.. not only his interpretation but also whether or not he believes all or any parts of your story, what you have and how much of it he will even consider, His current political beliefs ( they will deny that till they die but some of us know its a fact ) or whether or not he even feels like convicting the defendant.. He might also weigh the negative impact a conviction might have on the defendant... 

 

Bottom line... There is NO such thing as a "Slam Dunk" in a NJ court room.. More especially so if you get a Democratically appointed judge.. They don't believe in Law much.. only their personal convictions.. 

 

 

"rookie?... I assume you're a top A lawyer?"

 

Nope, just an old hunter whos been around the block a few times.. Sorry about the rookie remark.. didn't mean to sound condescending.. was just pointing out the obvious.. My bad

 

I don't mean to discourage U from taking these people to court.. I'm just telling you, from my experience, court aint gonna be what U probably think it will be.. more particularly the Trial aspect of it..

 

That is all....  

[HamiltonR&G]

How is it Rangers would give these scumbags x5 chances but be the first to write a ticket for not 299 square inches or orange or not having your cid number on your stand?!

[stratocaster]

If you know an off duty or retired LEO and can get them to come with you and witness the HH and possibly assault, because it looks like that is what this is coming to then you have more evidence in your corner.   This seems to be getting quite serious and you would be doing a service to others by getting these losers put away or getting a restraining order filed against them.  I am not advocating that you be a martyr for others but by getting these nutjobs out of the woods would be good.

[Buck154]

Short story is above.. the rangers have been trying to handle these people in a diplomatic fashion, but according to them, they have been an issue since they moved to the property. They been given many warnings but continue to do what they want.

Call a Co and get them involved and since there were warnings give it should be easy to charge them

[Axiom]

1. "  All A&H needs to do is provide enough initial evidence to law enforcement for them to start their investigation."

            Which the OP has said he has already done, and has been doing for the last several years..

 

1. "Since the offenders have been warned before and continue to violate the law, and law enforcement already has this documented, it will most certainly be investigated and referred to a prosecutor.  A&H's and his wife may not need to testify at all.  They will give statements to law enforcement and the prosecution will use those statements as evidence against the offenders.  That's the way these kinds of complaints move through the system."

​          Oh you better believe if the prosecutor wants a conviction for HH the OP and his wife will have to testify.. If he wants a conviction for other crimes like the ATV thing or Free roaming pets and the cops have already witnessed it then maybe not..

 

      "The "he said-she said" part of a criminal trial is between the offender and law enforcement.  So for those of you concerned that the evidence is too ambiguous, you probably haven't been in a criminal trial to see how credible law enforcement is versus the offender;

 

​       No doubt the Badge carries a lot of weight in court... But "He said and She said" without supporting evidence  never does..

 

 

especially since law enforcement has a good amount of evidence already.  Oh, and you can't "settle" in criminal court when you realize you're screwed."

 

      Yes U can.. Depends on if the Prosecutor feels the same way as u.. He me very well not... And that's because he knows there is not such thing as a "slam dunk" case.. even as the trial wears on...