There's two things that I know. 1) Both sides of that story was never published. 2) Calling this man a coward can only happen from a keyboard.
So the word of a wildlife commissioner carries more weight than the word of the “common man”? Gotta love the ruling class! We tend to promote our low lifes to Raleigh and Washington DC. Further there are always two sides of a story regardless of what happened and if you weren’t there all you have is second hand information.There is no side to the guy that jumped into another man's boat and punched him. According to the newspaper article. the impact of the ramming knocked the victim to the floor of his boat where the attacker boarded and struck him in the back of the head.
Which means he struck him from behind. While he was down. In an unprovoked attack.
There is no justification. It is not just one man's word against another's, there were two witnesses to the attack in the other boat, one of them was a WRC Commission member.
To say otherwise is the equivalent of saying that if a woman is raped, you need to hear the rapist's justification for his actions.
I have put my name out in the open.
I’m not defending his actions or SHL. I stated there are two sides to a story not sure how in your mind that equates to me wanting the advancement of SHL and OJs innocence. Wildlife commissioners can lie, cheat and steal like anyone else. Their title carries little water with me. There was only one perfect man and he was murdered on a cross by the Romans roughly 2000 years ago. Further I believe he has already took a plea agreement so there will be no trial.No, the word of multiple witnesses carries more word than one man. The fact that there are multiple cases of this same behavior from this man. One of the charges against this man is assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill.
I am struck that people who are advocating the grab of public water are defending the actions of a man that are clearly indefensible.
Suddenly, the people that have no regard for the "common man" when it comes to use of public trust water are suddenly concerned about the "common man" when it comes to a man who believes he owns the public water.
As far as waiting for the outcome of his trial, I would not be surprised if he gets off. His father owns the marina that the TV show "Wicked Tuna" is filmed and has connections. If he does get off on the charges, the blind law defenders will tout this as proof of his "innocence" and vindication of the blind laws.
We all know that OJ got off because he was innocent too.
Very Few of us.Woodmoose, you are correct. I am not advocating punishment without a trial. But this guy has a record of established behavior that supports the charges. In fact, after being charged with one assault, he did it again within a few weeks.
But it seems he is not just charged. After hearing the part about the plea agreement, I went online and checked. There will be no trial. He pled guilty and was sentenced to 7 days in jail and a 45 day suspended sentence as well as having his hunting privileges suspended for 2 years. Amazing how this light punishment has floated under the public radar. In light of the seriousness of the charges, I wonder who else could get such a light sentence.
His father, who was in the boat with him was charged with hunter harassment pled guilty and had to pay court costs.
Again, my point about the corrupt system concerning hunting and these public water laws. Umphlett was charged with a myriad of charges, including assault with a deadly weapon. Two of the charges against him were federal. Plead it down to 7 days in jail.
Father pleads no contest to hunter harassment and only had to pay court cost, in effect, payed the bill (about $180)to process him through the system to get no punishment for committing a crime. The normal fine is around $350, not including the $180 in court costs for going to court.
Seems like we have a two tier system of justice. How many of us here would be wearing striped clothes if we did the things that these two did?
Apparently it is good to have connections.
You're right. There should be nothing more to be reported and nothing will change what has been. FWIW, if I was legally hunting/scouting and a man were to board my boat with aggressive intentions, I'd be the only one to tell the story. There's reasons why this incident has gone the way it has and it's not a corrupt system. Hopefully, it's over with and folks have learned a lesson.As to the Jared Umphlett incident.... The minute a man boards another mans boat, he has crossed the threshold of being "level headed" and in my opinion, becomes the aggressor.
Gonna be hard to sway public opinion any other way considering what has been reported thus far. Until someone respectable like Conman steps up and explains why I should think otherwise, I'll go with the media reports.
Personally, and I get the generational legacy thing, I always kind of wondered, "What's the point" if its in Public Water since you need a boat to get there anyway, and the Boat can't be a canoe in most ENC counties. If its on a point that you can walk to from your land, a bit different IMO. They're more stable but they aren't usually a heck of a lot bigger, and sometimes smaller.As the "owner" of several blinds in Carteret County perhaps the best thing to do is just get rid of these stupid blinds period! If it's public water what gives you the right to build anything out there? Hunt from a boat or the shoreline with a reasonable distance between each other and problem solved. It sure would make our coasts look a little nicer too, without all that garbage sticking out of the water all over our "public" waters. I'm down to 2 from 6 blinds and hunting more from a boat now, and I kill just as many ducks and I don't have to worry about constant repairs and upkeep ($$$) and some weekend "scab" from Raleigh sitting in my blind and leaving it full of trash and beer cans. We even had to quit taking our dogs because the first thing these scabs would do is remove our dog steps from the inside of the blind and toss them overboard.
No blinds, no problems.
I agree 100%. But shouldnt someone who builds a blind on private proerty have some protection or buffer?Simple fact is that any blind built on public property is public property. It is why I don't build duck blinds, I hunt from a boat blind. I don't want to spend my money building public access to my hunting spots.
If my house borders a city park, and I build a deck right to the property line, shouldn't the city have the decency to keep kids from playing soccer where it will disrupt my Barbeque?