[Az-Geocaching] Who Manages What

[William Noll]

Obviously you missed the point...

    There was a time when being a Ranger meant being a steward of the land,
and an educator to the users of the land. These people were often what we
now call 'biologists'.

    The point is nobody should have to cower to some law enforcement nitwit,
who apparently did not know the law, and made the 'suspects' nervous when
they did nothing apparently wrong. People in law enforcement tend to forget
this. While there is no explicit right 'to be left alone',  the citizenry in
general often bend over backwards to law enforcement to prove they are not
doing something wrong; if you actually read the US Constitution, it's up to
the government (from police officers to juries) to actually go through all
the trouble to convict someone of breaking a law. The suspect has no
obligation to provide any information to the police.

    You also say that law enforcement is a thankless job, and where would we
be without it? The obvious fact is that law enforcement in general is
unnecessary overhead, and a burden on society. Argue that point if you'd
like, but a company that hires security guards has an overhead expense that
is passed on to their customers. Same thing. We live in a somewhat peaceful
society due to the majority of citizens that voluntarily follow laws - not
from the thankless (but certainly well paid) efforts of law enforcement.
Let's face it - if crime decreased (and how often is crime actually thwarted
by a cop?) we'd have to lay off cops. Forgive me if I look forward to that
day.

Bill



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian Casteel" <bcasteel@cox.net>
To: <listserv@azgeocaching.com>
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching] Who Manages What


> Ok.
>
> First of all, the Park Rangers are Arizona POST (Peace Officers Standards
> and Training) certified officers, which means they can enforce LAW, so I
> don't see what biology/ecology have to do with anything, but 2 random
> sciences you pulled out of a dictionary.  True, you don't have to say
> anything to the cop, but failure to do so increases suspicion of a crime
> being committed.  They *can* arrest you for suspicion if they have a
strong
> enough belief that you may have done something.  For example.  Jose Uriba
> Barajas-Salazar has several warrants out of multiple jurisdictions for
> multiple crimes.  An officer stops Jose Salazar Uriba for a traffic
> violation.  Both people have different DOBs and slightly different
> physicals.  However, there are parts of the story which don't mesh, so
he's
> taken into custody until it can be determined by a fingerprint check
whether
> or not he's who he is claiming NOT to be.  Is this illegal?  An appeals
> court has said no.  I don't know where you got the idea that most officers
> will not arrest without a supervisor present, because that's rarely EVER
the
> case.  10/10 of my officers don't ask for a Sgt to go 10-15, because
there's
> no reason to do so.  Heck, even if they get into a fight, a Sgt isn't
going
> to respond just so the bad guy can be arrested.  He'll probably still show
> up to assist in the subduing of the bad guy, but hardly for an arrest.
The
> only time(s) a supervisor responds is at the request of the officer due to
a
> beligerent violator, or someone who isn't being let out of their situation
> by the clout they believe they carry.
>
> An officer that 'threatens' to arrest isn't necessarily an idiot.  The
> gentleman in yesterday's incident is an exception to this.  If an officer
> isn't going to make an arrest, stating that this could have been the
outcome
> may change how someone perceives what they were doing, so it isn't
entirely
> wasted effort.  Harassing Scott/Regan yesterday was just jerkish though.
>
> Hmm, the government concern over dirty freeways.  Where ever shall I
start?
> Oh yeah.  Budgets.  ADOT (Arizona Department of Transportation) is
> responsible for cleaning up the freeways with their sweepers, which have
> HUNDREDS of miles of freeway to clean up, and there is a limited amount of
> money to go around.  Adopt-A-Highway can't do some of it, for the simple
> fact of liability and policy.  Those folks volunteering their time aren't
> allowed to pick up trash within 10' of the roadway.  In all reality, the
> state shouldn't have to do anything about the trash on the highways.
Those
> that toss cigarette butts out the window, or their McDonald's bags, or
even
> their empty Budweiser containers should.  Unfortunately there aren't
enough
> officers available to catch everyone, and the issue of stupid drivers who
> continue to cause wrecks behind wrecks also keep the officers from writing
> traffic citations and being pro-active in their jobs.
>
> You sure have a negative attitude about law enforcement.  Everything you
> said was tainted with anger/hatred toward anyone with a badge.  What you
> have clearly forgotten is where we would be as a society without law
> enforcement officials around, who work in one of the most thankless jobs
out
> there.  Just remember.  When you are stopped by an officer for a
violation,
> you will likely receive the same respect you dish out, which for you
> probably isn't going to be one to chock up for great memories in life.
>
> Oh, and that 'barely graduating from high school' bit made me laugh.
> Clearly they've kept their nose clean enough to be accepted as a police
> officer, who must pass rigorous standards in order to be deserving of the
> badge.  Nobody needs a law degree to enforce a specific set of laws which
> they are familiarized with through the equally rigorous academy and
> follow-up training before being released solo on the roads.
>
> Brian
> Team A.I.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "William Noll" <wnoll@cybertrails.com>
> To: <listserv@azgeocaching.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 4:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching] Who Manages What
>
>
> >     I wonder at what time in our history Park Rangers stopped having
> degrees
> > in Biology and Ecology, and instead became Law Enforcement?
> >
> >     After reading all this, I can offer one suggestion... Keep your
mouth
> > shut. Cops can question you for anything, but they have to have
> 'reasonable
> > suspicion / probable cause' to do anything to you. Think Miranda... the
> cop
> > is NOT your friend, and he will take notes of your conversation, and
those
> > conversations CAN BE used against you. You don't have to say anything to
> the
> > cop. You merely have to follow 'reasonable lawful orders' from him, like
> > providing ID and an insurance card if a vehicle is involved. He can't
> arrest
> > you unless he has probable cause, and most officers will not arrest
> without
> > a supervisor present (to sort out the issues) unless there is an
immediate
> > threat to his safety.
> >
> >     Also, any cop that 'threatens' arrest is an idiot. No smart one will
> > give away the 'element of surprise' in an escalating situation. I would
> > report him. His supervisors probably won't do anything (they DO protect
> each
> > other), but at least it can augment a personnel file if this guy is a
> > problem.
> >
> >     You should not feel like a criminal using the PUBLIC lands, by
hiding
> a
> > geocache. If government was so concerned about littering, they'd clean
up
> > the freeways. If you are approached by law enforcement, unless you just
> > geocached a murder victim, you have nothing to hide / fear, but you
don't
> > have to apologize for the sport to someone who probably barely graduated
> > from high school.  You can query the officer regarding why he is
stopping
> /
> > talking to you. If anything HE says sounds fishy, then remember the
shrewd
> > legal mind of our former president - "Deny, deny, deny". Remember that
> most
> > cops only have a cheesy associates degree in 'Criminal Justice', and
that
> > very few people with a J.D. (that's a law degree) go on to become cops.
> > Treat him as such. Remember, it's all about 'power'. Empower yourself by
> > making him do the hard work of explaining his actions to you, and if
> > necessary, act stupid. He will.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: <bcasteel@cox.net>
> > To: <listserv@azgeocaching.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 9:46 PM
> > Subject: Re: RE: [Az-Geocaching] Who Manages What
> >
> >
> > > To clarify one point, he could arrest you for trespassing, but not for
> > Geocaching.  Geocaching itself, is not illegal, but knowingly violating
> > certain laws to find a cache is.  It is also somewhat illegal to do it
> > unknowingly, but the case must be made by the officer and prosecutor
that
> > you ignored the invisible signs and phantom fencing to access the area
in
> > order to find the cache before you could be convicted on it.  There's a
> big
> > reason for the word 'knowingly' being used in description of crimes.
> > >
> > > Brian
> > > Team A.I
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > Az-Geocaching mailing list listserv@azgeocaching.com
> > To edit your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit:
> > http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching
> >
> > Arizona's Geocaching Resource
> > http://www.azgeocaching.com
> >
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Az-Geocaching mailing list listserv@azgeocaching.com
> To edit your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit:
> http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching
>
> Arizona's Geocaching Resource
> http://www.azgeocaching.com
>