• Forum server maintanace Friday night.(around 7PM Centeral time)
    Website will be off line for a short while.

    You may need to log out, log back in after we're back online.

Have you ever gotten busted?

Status
Not open for further replies.
... I don't think either of our positions have changed at all after countless hours at the keyboard has it? ...

Well, you don't know unless you try. If two persons intellectually discuss an issue, how do they know, before they start, if they will or won't "persuade" another person ?

And as to why I would re-type the same counter-point (as have you), it's simple: Because I see the same notion put out there, so .... the answer TOO hasn't changed. So if someone asks "what's 4+4, I'm going to answer 8. If they post the question (or make the claim ) 10 more times, then each time, the answer will still be "8". I can't help that :)

You have done a good job at putting a stone in people's shoes to think about. As too do I feel that I've given the discussion merit to think about. That's all we can ask. Even if we don't/didnt' convince each other, yet there's other folks who read forums, who can weigh the pros & cons.
 
Well, you don't know unless you try. If two persons intellectually discuss an issue, how do they know, before they start, if they will or won't "persuade" another person ?

Because they've had the exact same discussion many times in the past with the same result.

And as to why I would re-type the same counter-point (as have you), it's simple: Because I see the same notion put out there, so .... the answer TOO hasn't changed. So if someone asks "what's 4+4, I'm going to answer 8. If they post the question (or make the claim ) 10 more times, then each time, the answer will still be "8". I can't help that :)

If only this were mathematics where only one answer were possible! :lol:

Even if we don't/didnt' convince each other, yet there's other folks who read forums, who can weigh the pros & cons.

Pretty sure most people zone out after we go down the rabbit hole for the umteenth time...I'd guess (in the permission threads at least) we're more of an annoyance than a help to most people on here. :yes:
 
I was visiting Townsend Tennessee last year and made some phone calls to the local government to inquire about laws and rules on detecting. Was shuffled back and forth and finally was speaking with the Captain of the Police Department. He politely told me that because of some people who destroyed public grounds with their detecting it was illegal to hunt on any city owned property. HOWEVER he invited me to hunt on HIS property, which once had a Confederate camp on it. Unfortunately, I never got the opportunity to go there but will always appreciate his generous offer.
 
I was visiting Townsend Tennessee last year and made some phone calls to the local government to inquire about laws and rules on detecting. Was shuffled back and forth and finally was speaking with the Captain of the Police Department. He politely told me that because of some people who destroyed public grounds with their detecting it was illegal to hunt on any city owned property. .....

Chipk, did the police captain cite any actual rule that said "no metal detecting" ? Or was this just more like a policy, based perhaps on the interpretation of other things ?

As for the reason of "holes" ("destroyed"), etc...., this is not an uncommon reason given, to accompany a "no" passed out. In other words: it's going to be very rare indeed for someone to say something like "No, simply because I said so". Or: "because I felt like it". It's human nature to attach a "go to" reason to a "no". And since holes are the knee-jerk mental image of md'ing (let's be honest), it's very easy for someone to just say "no because of holes".

So the md'r mumbles under his breath "durned those past md'rs that must've left holes". But I'm not so convinced there was always cases of such a thing. It can just be the "go-to" reason, to justify the "no" he just gave you.
 
Well md, we've talked about this in the past and many members know on here that you simply pick up stuff on the surface but let's face it, most people here are talking about the kind of detecting that involves digging. For 99.5% of detectorists, detecting involves some kind of removing objects from under the surface. That's not you? Great, but don't try to use the fact that you personally detect but don't dig to justify telling others to go out and detect where digging is prohibited (knowing they do dig and remove objects). Your separation of detecting and digging is just a little semantic play that obscures what most of us are actually talking about here.

Again, I need to correct your erroneous accusations.
1) I have never suggested that anyone "Dig" where Digging is Illegal. Please feel free to research all my posts and prove it up with direct quotes or admit that your accusatory statement is incorrect.

I will and do state that if 'Digging' is ILLEGAL, it is still legal to MD if MDing is not specifically banned by law [ILLEGAL].

2) Your the only one playing semantics here although you accuse me of this. Here's the definition of the word DIG:
VERB
1.break up and move earth with a tool or machine, or with hands, paws, snout, etc.:
"the boar had been digging for roots"
synonyms: turn over · work · break up · till · harrow · plow · shovel
NOUN
1.an act or spell of digging:
"a thorough dig of the whole plot"

Now look up METAL DETECTOR and see if a metal detector is a type of "digging implement" by definition. Think you will find implements like shovels, hoes, spades, etc.are digging implements but 'metal detector' is not a digging implement. :dumb:

I will tell you that in my opinion, if you choose to 'dig, recover, etc.' when you know to 'dig, recover, etc.' is illegal as stated in the law but you have asked for and received permission to 'dig, recover, etc.' anyway...YOU ARE STILL COMMITTING AN ILLEGAL ACT. And, I'll add that you are doing so knowingly and in willful disregard of written laws. Tom says this is somewhat 'problematic'.

So you keep asking for permission to MD and keep digging where some 'groundskeeper' said he wouldn't care. But don't use the "I got permission" excuse because you know "Your separation of detecting and digging is [was] just a little semantic play that obscures what most of us are actually talking about here." :shock:

I'll repeat: IF MDing IS LEGAL...IT'S NOT ILLEGAL TO MD WHERE DIGGING IS NOT LEGAL. What is ILLEGAL is to DIG where Digging is not legal. I'll also add that it's not illegal to MD where 'recovering objects' is not legal BUT if you are 'recovering objects' where 'recovering objects is illegal, you are committing an illegal offense.

And I really hope you are smart enough to understand that no groundskeeper can give you "permission" to commit an illegal act...but I'm beginning to have some doubts.:doah:
 
Again, I need to correct your erroneous accusations.
1) I have never suggested that anyone "Dig" where Digging is Illegal. Please feel free to research all my posts and prove it up with direct quotes or admit that your accusatory statement is incorrect.

I will and do state that if 'Digging' is ILLEGAL, it is still legal to MD if MDing is not specifically banned by law [ILLEGAL].

2) Your the only one playing semantics here although you accuse me of this. Here's the definition of the word DIG:
VERB
1.break up and move earth with a tool or machine, or with hands, paws, snout, etc.:
"the boar had been digging for roots"
synonyms: turn over · work · break up · till · harrow · plow · shovel
NOUN
1.an act or spell of digging:
"a thorough dig of the whole plot"

Now look up METAL DETECTOR and see if a metal detector is a type of "digging implement" by definition. Think you will find implements like shovels, hoes, spades, etc.are digging implements but 'metal detector' is not a digging implement. :dumb:

I will tell you that in my opinion, if you choose to 'dig, recover, etc.' when you know to 'dig, recover, etc.' is illegal as stated in the law but you have asked for and received permission to 'dig, recover, etc.' anyway...YOU ARE STILL COMMITTING AN ILLEGAL ACT. And, I'll add that you are doing so knowingly and in willful disregard of written laws. Even Tom says this is somewhat 'problematic'.

So you keep asking for permission to MD and keep digging where some 'groundskeeper' said he wouldn't care. But don't use the "I got permission" excuse because you know "Your separation of detecting and digging is [was] just a little semantic play that obscures what most of us are actually talking about here." :shock:

I'll repeat: IF MDing IS LEGAL...IT'S NOT ILLEGAL TO MD WHERE DIGGING IS NOT LEGAL. What is ILLEGAL is to DIG where Digging is not legal. I'll also add that it's not illegal to MD where 'recovering objects' is not legal BUT if you are 'recovering objects' where 'recovering objects is illegal, you are committing an illegal offense.

And I really hope you are smart enough to understand that no groundskeeper can give you "permission" to commit an illegal act...but I'm beginning to have some doubts.:doah:

That's a lot of writing but you're still pretending that most people don't dig when they detect. So when a guy posts some gray-area rules and asks "Can I detect here?" and you say "Go for it" you're only referring to the detecting and not the digging? Isn't that a bit disingenuous, especially if you aren't making it clear that you are not including removing objects from the ground in your definition of detecting? When you know full well they aren't referring to picking up things on the surface? That's like saying "Sure you can fish here" but leave the "but catching fish is illegal" unsaid. A bit silly really. :roll:

As for a groundskeeper allowing you to commit an 'illegal' act, that is again more of a hypothetical statement than a practical one. If it's impossible then how is it that many people are given the go-ahead despite laws that could be applied to detecting? Sorry, I mean detecting + digging. It becomes illegal once the relevant authority decides to apply the law...in some places they choose to do that, and in others they don't. My point is that I'd rather find out which it is before I start detecting. Sorry, I mean detecting + taking things out of the ground. As paradoxical as it may seem, in my hometown parks in Canada it's 'illegal' to dig or take objects out of the park and yet they allow detecting. Sorry, detecting + taking objects out of the ground. The city next to mine has the same rules but has chosen not to allow detecting. It happens and it's up to the local authority's discretion how to apply the existing laws. If they tell me I can go ahead and detect (and dig) then that's good enough for me.
 
Most us aren't lawyers, or have a long history within the criminal justice system. We all have enough common sense to stop, before we go that far, and usually have better things to do, beside going to courthouse, and arguing a ticket.

Surface finds are fine, but it's not what most people swing a metal detector expect when they hunt. Seems pointless to buy equipment, when you could do just as well with one of Tom's frisbees duct taped to stick, make what ever annoying sound effects you wish, while eyeball finding stuff lying on the ground.

You don't actually have to be guilty of an offense, to get a ticket, or be accused of a crime. A judge or jury determines your guilt. The police enforce laws, as instructed, they only need probable cause or a complaint, and don't have to be right every time, or we wouldn't need judges. It's never a good idea to walk down that narrow line between legal/illegal, unless you really enjoy the courtroom experience. Sure, there is a very high likelihood at ticket will get tosses, if you go to court. I've sat through several hours of traffic court (not by choice), and witness the majority of cases being dismissed, where the defendant simply stood before the judge, answered a couple questions (just like mine). Says right the ticket, signing is not an admission of guilt...

This is a hobby, and its suppose to be fun and relaxing, not stressful and sneaky. Laws, rules, codes, regulations, aren't all the same. Park rules aren't criminal offenses, they can ask you to stop doing it, ask you to leave, they can also decide on the spot to let you dig. Never know, unless you ask, or get chased down and educated. I prefer to ask first, I can always go some place else, where I don't have to deal with it, or go through the mental challenge of weaseling my way out of a sticky situation. Certainly don't to worry about taking time off work to fight a ticket in court.

I think very harmful to the hobby, to encourage others to take the judicial challenge, just one step away from a legislative solution. You seen, when you challenge a ticket, the person who issued it, needs to be in court, as well as any witnesses. Your fun choices, impacts other people, costs time and money. Will they push for more specific and stronger rules concerning our hobby, or will they shrink in fear, and avoid reporting after being summoned to court a few times?

I'm certain most of this debate stuff is a joke for some, a game the play on the new people, to see who will actually fall for it. Too bad the Ignore List doesn't extend to quotes. I just see all this nonsense and Tom Foolery as dangerous to the hobby. We live in the greatest country in the world, where we are free to work things out among ourselves, before the judicial our legislative branches of government get involve. Working things out, involves communication, actually talking to other people, not keyword searching websites.
 
That's a lot of writing but you're still pretending that most people don't dig when they detect. So when a guy posts some gray-area rules and asks "Can I detect here?" and you say "Go for it" you're only referring to the detecting and not the digging? Isn't that a bit disingenuous, especially if you aren't making it clear that you are not including removing objects from the ground in your definition of detecting? When you know full well they aren't referring to picking up things on the surface? That's like saying "Sure you can fish here" but leave the "but catching fish is illegal" unsaid. A bit silly really. :roll:

As for a groundskeeper allowing you to commit an 'illegal' act, that is again more of a hypothetical statement than a practical one. If it's impossible then how is it that many people are given the go-ahead despite laws that could be applied to detecting? Sorry, I mean detecting + digging. It becomes illegal once the relevant authority decides to apply the law...in some places they choose to do that, and in others they don't. My point is that I'd rather find out which it is before I start detecting. Sorry, I mean detecting + taking things out of the ground. As paradoxical as it may seem, in my hometown parks in Canada it's 'illegal' to dig or take objects out of the park and yet they allow detecting. Sorry, detecting + taking objects out of the ground. The city next to mine has the same rules but has chosen not to allow detecting. It happens and it's up to the local authority's discretion how to apply the existing laws. If they tell me I can go ahead and detect (and dig) then that's good enough for me.

Wow stew,
Quite a personal attack and tirade. Unfortunately full of untruths, innuendo, assumptions, misrepresentations and on and on and on.

You say: "That's a lot of writing but you're still pretending that most people don't dig when they detect. So when a guy posts some gray-area rules and asks "Can I detect here?" and you say "Go for it" you're only referring to the detecting and not the digging? Isn't that a bit disingenuous, especially if you aren't making it clear that you are not including removing objects from the ground in your definition of detecting? When you know full well they aren't referring to picking up things on the surface? That's like saying "Sure you can fish here" but leave the "but catching fish is illegal" unsaid. A bit silly really. :roll:

I say: No, I don't pretend anything of the kind because yes, most people do dig when they MD...but you can MD without digging and some do. There is even a term for it...surface detecting. I know the first time I said there are sites I don't dig, I was called a liar. Well, it doesn't cause me any stress to be called a liar because I do only surface detect where digging is not legal. Also, I never tell anyone to "go for it" and this is just a false innuendo. If MDing is legal...then IT'S LEGAL. I do suggest to them to research the laws and make their own decisions because relying on a groundskeeper can get one in serious trouble. You can't twist that away like you would like to. And, I never give advice to fishermen as it is a generally know fact that all fishermen are liars. Seems maybe some MDers may also misrepresent the facts from time to time...especially when it fits your agenda.

You say: "As for a groundskeeper allowing you to commit an 'illegal' act, that is again more of a hypothetical statement than a practical one. If it's impossible then how is it that many people are given the go-ahead despite laws that could be applied to detecting? Sorry, I mean detecting + digging. It becomes illegal once the relevant authority decides to apply the law...in some places they choose to do that, and in others they don't. My point is that I'd rather find out which it is before I start detecting. Sorry, I mean detecting + taking things out of the ground. As paradoxical as it may seem, in my hometown parks in Canada it's 'illegal' to dig or take objects out of the park and yet they allow detecting. Sorry, detecting + taking objects out of the ground. The city next to mine has the same rules but has chosen not to allow detecting. It happens and it's up to the local authority's discretion how to apply the existing laws. If they tell me I can go ahead and detect (and dig) then that's good enough for me.

I say: You and others preach getting permission from the groundkeeper, park super, park secretary, mayor or others you call authorities. This is not "hypothetical" as you say. I say very clearly that at best, the authority can only give you his opinion as he, the secretary, the mayor, and not the LEO that has the authority to INTERPRET the law, as it is written. I know you cannot grasp this concept and apply it to the real world so you need not try.

You say: "If they tell me I can go ahead and detect (and dig) then that's good enough for me." Good luck with your defense in front of the judge and you tell him the Parks secretary told me I could MD even though the written law clearly says MDing is not allowed, or the mayor said I could MD and DIG even though the written law clearly says DIGGING is not allowed, or the groundskeeper told me it was OK to pee behind that tree even though I know I'm not allowed to PEE in public.

Some things are just common sense...something that seems to be lacking in your posts.
 
Wow stew,
Quite a personal attack and tirade. Unfortunately full of untruths, innuendo, assumptions, misrepresentations and on and on and on.

You say: "That's a lot of writing but you're still pretending that most people don't dig when they detect. So when a guy posts some gray-area rules and asks "Can I detect here?" and you say "Go for it" you're only referring to the detecting and not the digging? Isn't that a bit disingenuous, especially if you aren't making it clear that you are not including removing objects from the ground in your definition of detecting? When you know full well they aren't referring to picking up things on the surface? That's like saying "Sure you can fish here" but leave the "but catching fish is illegal" unsaid. A bit silly really. :roll:

I say: No, I don't pretend anything of the kind because yes, most people do dig when they MD...but you can MD without digging and some do. There is even a term for it...surface detecting. I know the first time I said there are sites I don't dig, I was called a liar. Well, it doesn't cause me any stress to be called a liar because I do only surface detect where digging is not legal. Also, I never tell anyone to "go for it" and this is just a false innuendo. If MDing is legal...then IT'S LEGAL. I do suggest to them to research the laws and make their own decisions because relying on a groundskeeper can get one in serious trouble. You can't twist that away like you would like to. And, I never give advice to fishermen as it is a generally know fact that all fishermen are liars. Seems maybe some MDers may also misrepresent the facts from time to time...especially when it fits your agenda.

You say: "As for a groundskeeper allowing you to commit an 'illegal' act, that is again more of a hypothetical statement than a practical one. If it's impossible then how is it that many people are given the go-ahead despite laws that could be applied to detecting? Sorry, I mean detecting + digging. It becomes illegal once the relevant authority decides to apply the law...in some places they choose to do that, and in others they don't. My point is that I'd rather find out which it is before I start detecting. Sorry, I mean detecting + taking things out of the ground. As paradoxical as it may seem, in my hometown parks in Canada it's 'illegal' to dig or take objects out of the park and yet they allow detecting. Sorry, detecting + taking objects out of the ground. The city next to mine has the same rules but has chosen not to allow detecting. It happens and it's up to the local authority's discretion how to apply the existing laws. If they tell me I can go ahead and detect (and dig) then that's good enough for me.

I say: You and others preach getting permission from the groundkeeper, park super, park secretary, mayor or others you call authorities. This is not "hypothetical" as you say. I say very clearly that at best, the authority can only give you his opinion as he, the secretary, the mayor, and not the LEO that has the authority to INTERPRET the law, as it is written. I know you cannot grasp this concept and apply it to the real world so you need not try.

You say: "If they tell me I can go ahead and detect (and dig) then that's good enough for me." Good luck with your defense in front of the judge and you tell him the Parks secretary told me I could MD even though the written law clearly says MDing is not allowed, or the mayor said I could MD and DIG even though the written law clearly says DIGGING is not allowed, or the groundskeeper told me it was OK to pee behind that tree even though I know I'm not allowed to PEE in public.

Some things are just common sense...something that seems to be lacking in your posts.

Your constant cries of 'personal attack!', 'innuendo!', 'misrepresentation!', etc. etc. sounds like a re-run from The Peoples' Court. This is the internet and we are discussing differing opinions on metal detecting. You come across as the kind of guy that would take somebody to court because they bumped into you in the grocery store...a little too dramatic for me.
 
Last edited:
Chipk, did the police captain cite any actual rule that said "no metal detecting" ? Or was this just more like a policy, based perhaps on the interpretation of other things ?

As for the reason of "holes" ("destroyed"), etc...., this is not an uncommon reason given, to accompany a "no" passed out. In other words: it's going to be very rare indeed for someone to say something like "No, simply because I said so". Or: "because I felt like it". It's human nature to attach a "go to" reason to a "no". And since holes are the knee-jerk mental image of md'ing (let's be honest), it's very easy for someone to just say "no because of holes".

So the md'r mumbles under his breath "durned those past md'rs that must've left holes". But I'm not so convinced there was always cases of such a thing. It can just be the "go-to" reason, to justify the "no" he just gave you.

He simply told me there was a local ordinance that prohibited hunting on public grounds
 
He simply told me there was a local ordinance that prohibited hunting on public grounds

and I applaud you for having that be enough. What's going to happen now, is a few are going to come on and tell you that you should have searched this and searched that. I think some are seriously contemplating buying a Scooby doo mystery machine for these very instances. I belong to your camp where being told "NO" doesn't bother me for more than a few minutes, until my reasoning takes over and I find a solution, rather than spend the rest of my day either pouting, or trying to prove someone else wrong, rubbing it in their face telling them "see this, there's nothing that says I can't detect!!! It says "no digging", but you're not seeing me dig". While they are doing that, I'll be at another place trying to find something cool.
 
He simply told me there was a local ordinance that prohibited hunting on public grounds


The "ordinance" that he speaks of, might have been something about "altering" or "defacing" or "removing" etc...... Ie.: it may not have specifically said "no metal detecting"

Such verbage exists in every single city's muni codes, in every single city. Yup, even city parks where you can detect till you're blue in the face, and no one ever had an issue. Unless the md'r was being a nuisance, or had found a bored desk-bound pencil pusher to decide "no" to the pressing question.
 
and I applaud you for having that be enough. What's going to happen now, is a few are going to come on and tell you that you should have searched this and searched that. I think some are seriously contemplating buying a Scooby doo mystery machine for these very instances. I belong to your camp where being told "NO" doesn't bother me for more than a few minutes, until my reasoning takes over and I find a solution, rather than spend the rest of my day either pouting, or trying to prove someone else wrong, rubbing it in their face telling them "see this, there's nothing that says I can't detect!!! It says "no digging", but you're not seeing me dig". While they are doing that, I'll be at another place trying to find something cool.

See......



The "ordinance" that he speaks of, might have been something about "altering" or "defacing" or "removing" etc...... Ie.: it may not have specifically said "no metal detecting"

Such verbage exists in every single city's muni codes, in every single city. Yup, even city parks where you can detect till you're blue in the face, and no one ever had an issue. Unless the md'r was being a nuisance, or had found a bored desk-bound pencil pusher to decide "no" to the pressing question.

I'm never let down.....
 
Your constant cries of 'personal attack!', 'innuendo!', 'misrepresentation!', etc. etc. sounds like a re-run from The Peoples' Court. This is the internet and we are discussing differing opinions on metal detecting. You come across as the kind of guy that would take somebody to court because they bumped into you in the grocery store...a little too dramatic for me.

Glad to know I am too dramatic for you...maybe that means you will choose to ignore all my posts.:please: It would no doubt keep me from having to point out all the errors, omission, misdirection, misrepresentations, deceptions, misleading comments, off-topic comments, snide remarks, mistakes, bad advice, etc. in your 'always ask permission' posts.

BTW, how does it feel knowing that when you ask for permission [and you do always recommend getting permission] to MD and Dig when Digging is illegal, you choose to do it anyway now knowing you are breaking the law? Oh that's right, you're in Japan and not here in the US where no permission is required when it's already legal to MD. And since you usually can't understand the difference, I better go ahead and say it...it's rhetorical. Oh, and isn't it a little disingenuous of you, STEW, to not tell an OP you've never really MDed in the US and know little practical/useful knowledge about laws and ordinances when you give your usually bad 'always ask for permission' advice? Uh oh, I feel another big pile of stew may be brewing.

Thanks, in advance for ignoring all my future posts...if you can!:grimace:

My apologies to the OP for stew's off-topic comments and my necessary responses.
 
It would no doubt keep me from having to point out all the errors, omission, misdirection, misrepresentations, deceptions, misleading comments, off-topic comments, snide remarks, mistakes, bad advice, etc.

Pot? Kettle? All very dramatic once again. You must be a real hit at parties. ;)

BTW, how does it feel knowing that when you ask for permission [and you do always recommend getting permission] to MD and Dig when Digging is illegal, you choose to do it anyway now knowing you are breaking the law?

I'm straining to find sense in what you've said here but if you're meaning that even after being given permission to detect and dig by the relevant authorities I'm still breaking the law then I'm afraid you're incorrect. The local authorities have the right to interpret their own rules how they see fit, hence the often vague, catch-all wording. If I'm given permission then it's no longer illegal. It seems you're asking how I feel about it though so I'd say I feel pretty good.

My apologies to the OP for stew's off-topic comments and my necessary responses.

:lol::lol::lol:Now THAT'S funny. Necessary indeed. :roll:
 
Hey GroundSweeper did any radium show up on your detector at McClellan??? Haaa
 
Pot? Kettle? All very dramatic once again. You must be a real hit at parties. ;)



I'm straining to find sense in what you've said here but if you're meaning that even after being given permission to detect and dig by the relevant authorities I'm still breaking the law then I'm afraid you're incorrect. The local authorities have the right to interpret their own rules how they see fit, hence the often vague, catch-all wording. If I'm given permission then it's no longer illegal. It seems you're asking how I feel about it though so I'd say I feel pretty good.



:lol::lol::lol:Now THAT'S funny. Necessary indeed. :roll:

It's not surprising that you're straining...it happens when someone is full of it. So how did I know you couldn't ignore me???:p :lol2:

stew says: "If I'm given permission then it's no longer illegal."
You did say this didn't you? It's a direct quote now documented, right? Or, will you now pretend you didn't?

I say: This is just bad advice. But hey, you're the expert... :umno:
 
After checking with the OP of this thread we are CLOSING it.

He got the answers he wanted on his original question and the thread has drifted into an endless debate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom