We Let The Cop Off Easy, Wuss Award For Detectors.
- Thread starter Martin_V3i
- Start date
- Status
Philbyfile
Forum Supporter
“Excuse me officer. Are you detaining me, or am I free to go?” If the officer says you’re free to go, leave immediately and don’t answer any more questions.
Texas does NOT have a stop-and-identify law.
Texas does NOT have a stop-and-identify law.
LordOfTheZincs
Elite Member
4 inches!!! That is afor me. I don't practice "popping coins" too much. Getting better at it though, but 4inches will take a while for me to do. Just not that good yet when popping coins. Either way, good job for showing the guy how it is done in our hobby
HH \_
I wondered about that too! DANG! I don't think I've ever even dug a target that deep let alone pop it out with a brass coin probe. My gf wanted to know if that was a man's tape measure or a woman's.....
I don't get it......
trash2find
Elite Member
Mayor's wife.....
I mean no disrespect, but you didn't really respond to my post. I completely agree that these grounds keeping laws can be interpreted as applicable to metal detecting (especially when it's convenient to do so) but that's a completely different topic than what I was writing about. I also made no mention whatsoever of a "police state" and while I make no claims to have more than a basic knowledge of policing attitudes 150 years ago in 1864, John Adams defense of soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre of 1770, or Washington's reaction to the Whiskey Rebellion of 1792, I don't see how they are relevant to the issues being discussed here.
While you are completely free to express your own personal opinion, it's unreasonable to not expect others to voice their own in response. I mean no disrespect to you in any of my posts and apologize if you took anything I wrote as such. I would like to add that I feel that your second sentence was completely unnecessary and uncalled for.
JunkInTheTrunk
Elite Member
I wondered about that too! DANG! I don't think I've ever even dug a target that deep let alone pop it out with a brass coin probe. My gf wanted to know if that was a man's tape measure or a woman's.....
Yeah, I'm sorry, I'm NOT afraid to admit that "I" think it is somewhat of an "artform" to pop coins an especially THAT deep. The best I can do is about 2in deep and then it just becomes a badly dug "plug" from then on
I practice popping coins every now and then nonetheless.HH \_ to us all
mightythree
Senior Member
Well, I disagree. Granted, I wasn't alive 150 years ago, maybe you were??
BUT from what I've read and learned about US history, the founding fathers were fleeing tyranny and would have objected to a standing army, a militarized police department, a fiat currency, a lack of public morality, a lack of personal responsibility and a government that injects itself into every facet of the lives of its citizens. You might argue that the times have changed to which I would counter that there is nothing new under the sun. You might say that I'm pushing anarchy and I would ask you just where you draw the line. When is enough enough?Ben Franklin said,
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."
You knew that quote was coming right?
CoiltoSoil
Elite Member
CoiltoSoil
Elite Member
Well, I disagree. Granted, I wasn't alive 150 years ago, maybe you were??
Ben Franklin said,
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."
You knew that quote was coming right?
Haha, that I did, there are a bunch of freedom quotes from them but I feel once they had control they realized that some liberties did need to be sacrificed. Like I said, you can't have a totally free society, it would be anarchy and chaos. Most of the founding fathers wanted a strong government, where they disagreed was whether it be a strong centralized government or strong state government. Washington may not have had a police force but he swiftly sent militia and federal forces to suppress any threat he suspected towards the federal government. Jefferson came next, he bared trading to and from all American ports, crippling the economy of most citizens, and when the citizens complained, he called in the army and navy to enforce his act. The only difference I really see today vs. then is the use of militia and troops over police (simply because they did not exist). As normal politicians, they said one thing and did the other. It's no different from today. I recall reading a quote William V told Adams after a meeting with Washington "‘Sir, you have given yourselves a king under the title of president’."
CoiltoSoil
Elite Member
Let's face it, those loosely stated rules can be, and were applied to detecting. Do you have an argument that it does not refer to metal detecting? Sure....Do the park employees have an argument that it does refer to detecting? Sure. Who's side do you think the cop will listen to, or has to listen to? If the cop calls the park personnel and they tell him "no detecting" what should he do? Read the rule and argue with the park supervisor that "well you technically don't have to hurt grass"? His job is to enforce rules, not to clarify, argue, or change them. He was told it's not allowed and enforced the rule by simply asking them to leave. I don't agree with the rule, and I have had it happen to me, but the only option is asking the park to clarify the rule, change the rule, and if all else fails go to court and force a change, or attempt to.
As for the other argument I'm just disproving the myth of the modern police state and showing that a police state has been in effect as long as the American government has been in effect. Like I said the only difference is they used the militia and army rather than a police force. People have this utopian fantasy of some totally free country that existed in the past which was much more free than today. That is simply not true at all, and our forefathers actions prove this.
If I were in your position on this matter I would go back to the park by myself in a low key way. It is possible that you are not allowed to metal detect in the park if someone calls and complains and it is possible that you can detect in the park if no one complains. Go back by yourself keep your un-digger in your back pocket with no handle and don't wear a pouch for your finds.
LordOfTheZincs
Elite Member
The thing I guess I don't understand is this part, and Officers/retired Officers please help me out on this. I've been in trouble with the law, yes. Been in jail a number of times in fact. Back in my rowdy days I was a drinking, fighting, he** raising fool. (3.5 yrs ago
) I will be 43 in a few days and have calmed down LOTS since then. But still have temper problems. I wouldn't feel comfortable talking to them in the first place, even though I know all the cops here, they don't know my past and I don't want them too. I have a very good reputation here and even work on the squad cars. That being said, if a report is made, isn't it up to the officer to VERIFY that report before asking people for all of that info.? They were up to damaging, serious misconduct.....well, no, according to the cop, he might as well have said it looked to him as if they were wandering around picking up trash. So.....the report is unfounded at that point correct? Null, done, over with. If anything, go give little snooty person a ticket for filing a false report! 
See guys, this is how I can get into trouble sometimes......"Excuse me officer, I'm going to need to borrow that ticket book and can you point me to the person filing the false report?" What if the person called and said the 2 of them just shot someone in the face? Wouldn't someone have to show up to see if someone was shot in the face before hauling them out of the park?
JunkInTheTrunk
Elite Member
The thing I guess I don't understand is this part, and Officers/retired Officers please help me out on this. I've been in trouble with the law, yes. Been in jail a number of times in fact. Back in my rowdy days I was a drinking, fighting, he** raising fool. (3.5 yrs ago
If I am correct I agree. It's like calling 911 and declaring an "emergency" when in fact... there IS NO EMERGENCY!!! You can see that this type of arguement can posssssssibly go both ways as it can also be a "matter of view point" with an individual on what he/she considers to be an "emergency". I don't know how to explain it in words. Nevertheless, I can see the arguement of what LordOfTheZincs is trying to get at... I'm pretty sure I'm thinking the same thing.
But, at the same time, the cop is NOT "judge/jury" either. So where is "the fine line" drawn when a cop can decide whether serious crimes were committed
Or look at it another way, a cop is being "judge/jury" in this case right now whether a crime was committed or not... he/she is still making a decision either wayI will say this, I was involved in a car accident quite a few years ago that could have nearly killed the person in the other car. They made a left turn RIGHT AS I got to the "corner", which had a stop light. So figure I had roughly 10ft or so going about 50mph, which is the speed limit of the road. To my surprise, when the authorities came out to do the initial investigation, "I" was being accused of "running a red light"
I told the police officer, "that no I did not" and he said, "the car behind me said that I had indeed run the red light." This was a VERY BIGGGGG cop. I eventually started raising my voice TOWARDS the police officer arguing the same arguement. Then eventually I'm looking at the intersection and noticing the other cars doing the EXACT same thing I was with the cars waiting to make a left turn... yielding for the on-coming traffic So I then said AND POINTED to the cars, "then why aren't you ARRESTING those cars right now because they're running a red light as we speak!!!" YELLING this in his face!!! I was VERY heated by this time because "I" was very close to being accused because of, supposedly, "eyewitness testimony". I mean, it was a scene, and I'm NOT talking about the accident. I was roughly in my early 20's. I stood my ground and was NOT going to back down against this, again, this guy was F ' N HUGE and I was pretty damn scrawny then, only tipping the scale at around 135lbs with the police office having to be around 200+ and ALL muscle
Finally, a sheriff's officer comes over and said that, "the witness told me... 'now he wasn't sure whether it was a red light or not'..." and told the other officer (i.e. he wasn't a sheriff, but like a "city cop" or however you want to describe it) that he (i.e. the sheriff) will be taking over. This was, again, quite some time ago, but that is exactly how it happened.Anyways, in my eyes, seeing what LordOfTheZincs wrote and what I THINK he is trying to get at is just that... the supposed "eyewitness" in "MY" situation should have now been more questioned in a sense that THIS was a VERY SERIOUS car accident. My brother and his kids were just in a serious car accident that VERY, VERY, VERY NEARLY could have killed my little niece and EVERY THING was going against my brother. He had, supposedly, upto 3x "eyewitnesses" that said, "he was going this direction... and ran a red light" when in fact he was NOT going east, but indeed south as my brother and the kids had argued their point and the police officer just straight-up ignored them... like THEY (my brother and his kids) had no rights and say
So I hope you can somewhat see my point in what I was trying to get at, where does the judge/jury/executioner line be drawn. What heated me up the most was the fact that my nieces/nephews were swearing up/down (i.e. not cussing, but trying to make a VERY STRONG arguement) that their dad was innocent, but yet the police officer wouldn't even give them a fighting chance. This was just over a year ago. Oh, BTW, the person that DID cause the accident told the officer that SHE was going south bound and STUCK to that story when she found out how many "eyewitnesses" were making a claim that it was my brothers fault 100%!!! Now that the dust settled, how much do you want to bet she isn't serving any jail time for making a false report... KNOWING, full on that she was clearly at fault. I could go on and on about this as well, but I think all of you get the stories about my personal experiences and what, again, I think LordOfTheZincs is trying to get at.Either way, yes, these supposed laws against our hobby is just ridiculous. Personally, why aren't dog owners, for example, why aren't they given more tickets out for pooping in the park? I mean, for all I know, the dog has parvo and could "infect" my dog and just leaving out the fact of shots... this is REGARDLESS of shots because it just simply comes down to the fact that an owner of a dog should clean up after their dogs mess because of kids playing on the play grounds... (and BEEEELIEVE ME, I LOVE dogs... I LOVE my sisters Maltese... what a character that dog is).
HH \_ people... try to at least
pescadore
Elite Member
The thing I guess I don't understand is this part, and Officers/retired Officers please help me out on this. I've been in trouble with the law, yes. Been in jail a number of times in fact. Back in my rowdy days I was a drinking, fighting, he** raising fool. (3.5 yrs ago
I think that there seems to be a misunderstanding of the procedures for LEO's and how this probably happened. I can't say for sure because I wasn't there but based on my years of experience in LE this would be my guess. Someone (the OP said that the officer told them it was a city employee) reported the violation to the PD and the Officer responded to the call. The officer made contact with the detectorists as part of an investigation of the offense. He followed standard procedure (other than the asking of the phone number) to identify the people that he was speaking to. At this point it's my personal opinion, based on the conversation the officer had with the detectorists, that he wasn't even sure whether the detectorists were actually in violation of the ordinance or were doing anything wrong. He goes to his patrol vehicle to check the Ordinance or to speak to either his supervisor or an official in the Parks and Rec Dept. to verify whether what they were doing violated the ordinance. This is a problem because he should have know that prior to making contact with the detectorists if that was the case. Once he verified that a violation occurred the officer made contact with the detecorists by phone (another bad judgement IMHO, should have gone in person)and told them that they were in violation and asked them to cease what they are doing. There would have been no offense report taken by anyone because it was just a routine violation that a citation would have been issued for if the officer had chosen to do so. The City would have been the complainant and the officer would have signed the complaint, not the original reporting person. The Officer basically used his discretion (as I believe most would) and decided that the problem could be corrected without citations being issued and when they left the call was closed with that action taken.
Here is what could have happened if the Officer really wanted to be a jerk. The officer receives the call, checks the ordinance, shows up at the park and waits until he has witnessed the detectorists burying their diggers into the soil and retreiving a target. Exited his vehicle, issued citations for the City Ordinance violation and handled any further issues with Failure to ID if necessary and mad a big deal out of a petty issue. Would he have been within his scope of duties, absolutely, could have the detectorists fought the citation and ask for a jury trial and plead their case about how the ordinance does not apply to metal detecting, sure.
Who loses at this point? Let's see, the detectorists get a citation, the detectorists have to either represent themselves or get an attorney and go to court, they may or may not have to pay the citation and court costs and be out alot of money. The Officer attends court with the City Attorney who will represent the city in this case (no sweat for the officer). The Officer (who is probably being paid overtime for having to be in court) explains his actions and why he issued the citations (again no sweat for the officer).
Looks like the whole thing to me was handled expeditiously without all this trouble. I don't agree with the Ordinance because personally, I believe squirrels and other park creatures do alot more damage to the soil that we do. Whether these ordinance should apply to detectorists will be up to the courts to decide and that will not happen unless they are challenged. There is a correct procedure for challenging these laws and there is a wrong way. The correct procedure is not to make your argument to the officer that is merely doing his job because he cant change the laws even if he wanted to. All the discussions in the world on forums about permissions and ordinances won't change anything either but it does make for some interesting reading !! Just my opinion and HH to all !!!
Pesc
LordOfTheZincs
Elite Member
uhm.....yes junk. that's kinda what I mean. It seems it would be up to the cop. I say put on a fake beard and nail it again. Of course in his case he would now need a fake ID also. "We warned you mister! Now, here's your ticket for all the mayhem you're causing by digging around and what not!"
that's kinda what I mean. It seems it would be up to the cop. I say put on a fake beard and nail it again. Of course in his case he would now need a fake ID also. "We warned you mister! Now, here's your ticket for all the mayhem you're causing by digging around and what not!"
mightythree
Senior Member
Haha, that I did, there are a bunch of freedom quotes from them
but [B]I feel [/B]once they had control they realized that some liberties did need to be sacrificed. Like I said, you can't have a totally free society, it would be anarchy and chaos. Most of the founding fathers wanted a strong government
WOW. Very different government from today. I'm sure you'll take this the wrong way, but you haven't "proven" anything. Your feelings don't change the facts. This quote is widely attributed to GW (not Bush) "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." He may have or may not have said it, earliest reference was a 1902 book.
Here's a link to the writings of Samuel Adams. http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000365581
Here's a link to MANY source documents including the writings and papers of the founders:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/links.asp#histordocs
It's CLEAR that the founding fathers restricted the power of the federal government in order to keep tyranny at bay --even down to the amount of land it could own - the original 10 square miles of Washington DC. It's also CLEAR that since it's creation, the office of the president has usurped powers often with the assistance of members of congress. Power hungry people will never give up their quest to dominate their fellow man. It's also CLEAR that you and I are at odds, and I'm fine with that. When they come for your guns and to put you into a FEMA camp, think happy thoughts about your big brother!!
The Cop mentioned at the beginning of the thread was doing a job, and he could have done that job without taking Martin's information like he's a criminal. No citation given remember??
I will probably never grasp why one's name and identity should be such a closely guarded secret, even to those who there to "serve and protect"... Isn't one of an officer's main functions, to gather information, evidence, facts? Doesn't getting a name/identification sort of ensures that the accused won't just run, when he goes to look it the situation further, question the accuser, or other witnesses. Still think reluctance to comply, implies something to hide.
If you are so afraid of being identified, you should where gloves (finger prints), a disguise (LEO around here are all play with body worn cameras). If you've been incarcerated, or given blood (donated/doctor/hospital), your DNA is likely in the system too. Your name/identity isn't such a simple secret, keeping it, is more of a nuisance. But then again, some people think cops are for entertainment, their entitled, since their tax dollars pay their salaries.
If you are so afraid of being identified, you should where gloves (finger prints), a disguise (LEO around here are all play with body worn cameras). If you've been incarcerated, or given blood (donated/doctor/hospital), your DNA is likely in the system too. Your name/identity isn't such a simple secret, keeping it, is more of a nuisance. But then again, some people think cops are for entertainment, their entitled, since their tax dollars pay their salaries.
CoiltoSoil
Elite Member
WOW. Very different government from today. I'm sure you'll take this the wrong way, but you haven't "proven" anything. Your feelings don't change the facts. This quote is widely attributed to GW (not Bush) "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." He may have or may not have said it, earliest reference was a 1902 book.
Here's a link to the writings of Samuel Adams. http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000365581
Here's a link to MANY source documents including the writings and papers of the founders:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/links.asp#histordocs
It's CLEAR that the founding fathers restricted the power of the federal government in order to keep tyranny at bay --even down to the amount of land it could own - the original 10 square miles of Washington DC. It's also CLEAR that since it's creation, the office of the president has usurped powers often with the assistance of members of congress. Power hungry people will never give up their quest to dominate their fellow man. It's also CLEAR that you and I are at odds, and I'm fine with that. When they come for your guns and to put you into a FEMA camp, think happy thoughts about your big brother!!
The Cop mentioned at the beginning of the thread was doing a job, and he could have done that job without taking Martin's information like he's a criminal. No citation given remember??
John Adams "Limited monarchy is founded in Nature. No Nation can adore more than one Man at a time. It is a happy Circumstance that the object of our Devotion [Washington] is so well deserving of it." He also imposed the sedition act which made it a crime to talk badly about the government.
Hamilton "The monarch must have proportional strength. He ought to be hereditary, and to have so much power, that it will not be his interest to risk much to acquire more."
Benjamin Rush "No nation under Heaven ever was, now is, nor ever will be qualified for a Republican Government, unless you mean ... resulting from a Balance of three powers, the Monarchical, Aristocratical, and Democratical ... Americans are particularly unfit for any Republic but the Aristo-Democratical Monarchy."
Let's also remember that many of us on here would not have been eligible to vote in early America, because "We The People" most likely would not have met the criteria required in most states. And that the ruling elite of wealthy land owners seen most of us as too uneducated, uninformed, and unsophisticated to make decisions.
I feel the truth about our new governments intentions were shown at the first inauguration when Washington rode down the street in his expensive yellow carriage, pulled by 6 white horses, and followed by fully dressed militia on his way to make his address to senate which he dubbed "His Most Gracious Speech" the same address title given to the Kings Address to Parliament. Described by one critic of the time as " the first Step of the Ladder in the Ascent to royalty"
This country was always a police state ruled by the wealthy, it was never a government of the people. As for the Sam Adams quote, he was also the same guy who supported and pushed for executions of the Massachusetts Regulators, most of whom were in debt because they had never received back wages from their service in the Continental Army. The wealthy elite and politicians took it upon themselves to fund a private army to defeat the "rebels" and force them to pay up. To me he was the biggest hypocrite of all and justified his revolution against taxes by saying "in monarchies the crime of treason and rebellion may admit of being pardoned or lightly punished, but the man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death." So let us not forget that it's only OK to revolt against monarchs, not republics, no matter how unjust it may be.
Chris R
Elite Member
What the cop should of done is tell them to go somewhere else until the complainer leaves. I would of.
Minelab Explorer XS.
Minelab Explorer XS.
CoiltoSoil
Elite Member
True but he may not have known who complained, and if he told them to come back later the same person would most likely just call again. What idiot waste time calling 911 to report someone metal detecting?
- Status
