Murder or Castle Doctrine?

[Ming the Merciless]

Originally Posted by Radar Chief

Don't know about MO but it is most definitely true in Kansas, been through this argument with law enforcement officers.
In fact if the land owner owns the property on both sides of the river that section of the river belongs to them.

http://www.nationalrivers.org/PDF/RiverLawHandout.pdf

Federal law would probably bar anyone from fencing off or blocking the gravel bars even if an owner owned BOTH sides of the river. No matter what state.

As long as there is ankle deep water....there is probably an easement.



Not really an area I have any experience with though....

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

http://www.nationalrivers.org/PDF/RiverLawHandout.pdf

Federal law would probably bar anyone from fencing off or blocking the gravel bars even if an owner owned BOTH sides of the river. No matter what state.

As long as there is ankle deep water....there is probably an easement.



Not really an area I have any experience with though....

Ah, yes, the fencing off. I was talking strictly about property.
I imagine Fish and Game Dept. would have something to say about modifying the river bed so you’re probably right.

[Ming the Merciless]

Originally Posted by Radar Chief

Ah, yes, the fencing off. I was talking strictly about property.
I imagine Fish and Game Dept. would have something to say about modifying the river bed so you’re probably right.

The property issue is actually interesting too...

Here's my (very basic) take on it...

You would be better off NOT owning to the middle of the river...for it doesnt do you any good other than placing you at a greater risk of liability and need of insurance.

You cant build or control anything in the middle of the river anyway, because of the easement laws, so "owning" to the middle of the river is basically meaningless......Unless I am not thinking of something...like maybe if the river dries up? I dunno....but just looking at the river itself, theres almost no reason to 'want' to be the owner of the middle of the river in my mind.

I know this is a total tangent, but my mind wanders....

LOL

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

The property issue is actually interesting too...

Here's my (very basic) take on it...

You would be better off NOT owning to the middle of the river...for it doesnt do you any good other than placing you at a greater risk of liability and need of insurance.

You cant build or control anything in the middle of the river anyway, because of the easement laws, so "owning" to the middle of the river is basically meaningless......Unless I am not thinking of something...like maybe if the river dries up? I dunno....but just looking at the river itself, theres almost no reason to 'want' to be the owner of the middle of the river in my mind.

I know this is a total tangent, but my mind wanders....

LOL

Oh I agree. In my experience it’s just an excuse for grouchy old assholes to act like an asshole, which I assume gives them some weird pleasure.