$1000 Fine For Sitting In A Park

[+Miragee]

I like to go the the Playground and watch the children run, climb, scream and hide, it's funny, they don't know I'm using blanks.

 

Emo Phillips.

 

I hadn't seen that guy's name in a long time. When I saw him on TV one time back in the 80's, I couldn't believe how crazy his sense of humor was . . .

 

Edit to add appropriate quote.

Edited September 29, 2005 by Miragee

[+Moose Mob]

Reading Anonymous' log only strengthens my thoughts. The vast majority of laws on the books are there for valid reasons and they are typicaly applied in the manner in which they are intended. Yes, we can comntinue to pick at them to our hearts (dis)content. We can always find ways why "this" law should not apply to "me".

 

If the neighborhood does not like me hanging out in the kid's playground when my kid isn't with me, I can respect thier position and I will walk my dog or eat my lunch elsewhere. We need to get our parks back. People have the right to feel safe. If giving up my right of using the park help folks fell better, then I won't be selfish. Let them enjoy thier park.

 

For the record... when my kid is with me, I tend to put my 46 yr old butt in the swings also.

[+TotemLake]

Reading Anonymous' log only strengthens my thoughts. The vast majority of laws on the books are there for valid reasons and they are typicaly applied in the manner in which they are intended. Yes, we can comntinue to pick at them to our hearts (dis)content. We can always find ways why "this" law should not apply to "me".

 

If the neighborhood does not like me hanging out in the kid's playground when my kid isn't with me, I can respect thier position and I will walk my dog or eat my lunch elsewhere. We need to get our parks back. People have the right to feel safe. If giving up my right of using the park help folks fell better, then I won't be selfish. Let them enjoy thier park.

 

For the record... when my kid is with me, I tend to put my 46 yr old butt in the swings also.

Then you're pro police state. I'm not.

 

If my tax dollars went into providing a park for the public, then I, Joe Public, have as much a right to be there so long as I am not infringing on the rights of others. I would have voted to out the scoundrel for writing in such a law that limits my ability to enjoy the park without having a kid in tow as much as anybody else with children.

[+mini cacher]

We need to get our parks back.

Isn't that what we're talking about?

 

People have the right to feel safe. If giving up my right of using the park help folks fell better, then I won't be selfish. Let them enjoy thier park.

THAT is a slippery slide I don't feel safe going down. It is getting harder for me to not compare this with race issues again. "Feeling safe" means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

[+Moose Mob]

Reading Anonymous' log only strengthens my thoughts.  The vast majority of laws on the books are there for valid reasons and they are typicaly applied in the manner in which they are intended.  Yes, we can comntinue to pick at them to our hearts (dis)content.  We can always find ways why "this" law should not apply to "me".

 

If the neighborhood does not like me hanging out in the kid's playground when my kid isn't with me, I can respect thier position and I will walk my dog or eat my lunch elsewhere.  We need to get our parks back.  People have the right to feel safe.  If giving up my right of using the park help folks fell better, then I won't be selfish.  Let them enjoy thier park.

 

For the record...  when my kid is with me, I tend to put my 46 yr old butt in the swings also.

Then you're pro police state. I'm not.

 

If my tax dollars went into providing a park for the public, then I, Joe Public, have as much a right to be there so long as I am not infringing on the rights of others. I would have voted to out the scoundrel for writing in such a law that limits my ability to enjoy the park without having a kid in tow as much as anybody else with children.

No, I wouldn't jump that far to an extreme assumption such as that. I just feel that other folks have rights also. Including th eright to feel safe.

 

I feel I have the right to benefit from the expenditures of my tax dollars. I helped pay for the trip to the moon. My benefits include velcro, microwave ovens, and better insulation in my home.

 

If my neighbors feel safe to come out of thier home, then I get the benefit of meeting them. I consider the inconvenience of not being able to play on the public swings unless my kid is there as a minor inconvenience.

 

But that's my perspective. If people feel I am out of line, then that is their right. Differences are good. Otherwise we would be robots.

[+Moose Mob]

We need to get our parks back.

Isn't that what we're talking about?

 

People have the right to feel safe. If giving up my right of using the park help folks fell better, then I won't be selfish. Let them enjoy thier park.

THAT is a slippery slide I don't feel safe going down. It is getting harder for me to not compare this with race issues again. "Feeling safe" means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

There's a bit of symantecs involved here. I said "our" parks, not "your" park or "my" park or "his" park or "her" park. There is a difference.

 

As far as "feeling safe", yes I agree, it means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Apparently, enouigh people felt unsafe enough that they came up with this law as a method of fight back and regaining control of "thier" park.

 

If you feel deprived of your rights, then you should gather up enough people, write a petition, and get your park back. Complaining about it on a geocaching chat room isn't going to fix anything.

[JohnX]

No, I wouldn't jump that far to an extreme assumption such as that.  I just feel that other folks have rights also.  Including th eright to feel safe.

 

I feel I have the right to benefit from the expenditures of my tax dollars.  I helped pay for the trip to the moon.  My benefits include velcro, microwave ovens, and better insulation in my home.

Actually, no one has the right to "feel safe", they have the right to reasonably ecpect to be safe. There is a huge difference between the two. There are both civil and criminal laws intended to punish someone who harms you in some way and allow you to sue for compensation for your damages.

 

Additionally, there is no right "not to be offended by what someone says or does." First Amendment. One sentence.

 

Here is a perfect caching example. Just this week, I was placing a new cache in a local state park when I had a huge airdale not on a leash jump up on me. "Oh, he only want's to play" the owner said. I was polite, but not happy. (BTW, look for the "Double Dog Dare" cache soon to be listed) In every town I have cached in there is a law requiring dogs be kept on leashes at all times while on public property. The law specifically states dog owners have no right to let their dogs off the leash. I can, and have called law enforcement because of loose dogs, and can also sue the dog owner for damages if the dog jumps on me and causes me emotional distress. That is my right.

 

However, if a dog owner has a pit bull on a leash, that is their right even if I don't "feel safe" anywhere near the dog or owner.

 

And an off topic BTW. Velcro was invented in 1948 by George de Mestral, the first commercial microwave oven was was marketed in 1954, and in 1938 Owens-Corning developed a process to manufacture microscopic glass fibers that were sprayed with chemicals to form fiberglass insulation. -- The Apollo program started in 1963 and men first landed on the moon in 1969.

[+Moose Mob]

Perhaps we should allow the perverts to take thier hold of all the parks instead of a few, and the parents can keep the kids locked in the house where they feel safe?

[+mini cacher]

Then you need to specify who we need to take our parks back from. Because it all sounds like we needed to take them back from "people who visit the park without children". But I don't think they are the ones that have taken our parks away in the first place. If they didn't take it away.. how can we take it back from them? If you mean we need to take back our parks from vagrants, hudlums, drug dealers, etc then I'm all for that. But it would have been better to stop and think about what type of law would target those groups. Maybe there are already laws to help that don't cast such a broad net. Because in the process of taking back the park from some pervert, they also took it away from regular people. I'd be willing to bet that the number of regular people who can no longer visit the park is a lot higher than the number of perverts.

 

And I don't feel at all deprived of my rights since I've already stated I can't even tell you where there is a park around me with this stupid rule. But if we all sit back and play dumb until it happens to us... it'll be too late. But you are right again about one thing. Complaining about it on a geocaching chat room isn't going to fix anything.... just like that law.

 

Perhaps we should allow the perverts to take thier hold of all the parks instead of a few, and the parents can keep the kids locked in the house where they feel safe?

No... just go to the park and feel the same level of discomfort that they probably should be feeling 75% of the time they are out of the house. Bad things can happen anywhere if you're not looking. If there are seriously a few parks were the perverts just openly hangout and have a hold on the park... by gosh send a patrol car over there and start rounding up the perverts.

[Frankyguy]

Reading Anonymous' log only strengthens my thoughts.  The vast majority of laws on the books are there for valid reasons and they are typicaly applied in the manner in which they are intended.  Yes, we can comntinue to pick at them to our hearts (dis)content.  We can always find ways why "this" law should not apply to "me".

 

If the neighborhood does not like me hanging out in the kid's playground when my kid isn't with me, I can respect thier position and I will walk my dog or eat my lunch elsewhere.  We need to get our parks back.  People have the right to feel safe.  If giving up my right of using the park help folks fell better, then I won't be selfish.  Let them enjoy thier park.

 

For the record...  when my kid is with me, I tend to put my 46 yr old butt in the swings also.

I have to agree with Benjamin's quote below;

 

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary

safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin

[+Moose Mob]

Reading Anonymous' log only strengthens my thoughts.  The vast majority of laws on the books are there for valid reasons and they are typicaly applied in the manner in which they are intended.  Yes, we can comntinue to pick at them to our hearts (dis)content.  We can always find ways why "this" law should not apply to "me".

 

If the neighborhood does not like me hanging out in the kid's playground when my kid isn't with me, I can respect thier position and I will walk my dog or eat my lunch elsewhere.  We need to get our parks back.  People have the right to feel safe.  If giving up my right of using the park help folks fell better, then I won't be selfish.  Let them enjoy thier park.

 

For the record...  when my kid is with me, I tend to put my 46 yr old butt in the swings also.

I have to agree with Benjamin's quote below;

 

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary

safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin

Very valid quote. It's context and how you intended for it to be applied is a question.

 

I believe Ben was refering to was surrendering to your adversaries to gain temporary safety, and in doing so, thier cause would be allowed to propogate.

 

From one perspective, one could say that those who seek safety are cowards. I do not chose that interpretation.

 

I look at it as folks who fight back to those who would persue thier own selfish causes. Those of would use the park to stalk childeren, to use/pedal illicit drugs, to claim it for thier gangs, or whichever illegal reasons. Rather than seek temporary safety in thier homes, they did something. They fight using the system, not through brute force.

Edited September 30, 2005 by Moose Mob

[+Moose Mob]

Then you need to specify who we need to take our parks back from. Because it all sounds like we needed to take them back from "people who visit the park without children". But I don't think they are the ones that have taken our parks away in the first place. If they didn't take it away.. how can we take it back from them? If you mean we need to take back our parks from vagrants, hudlums, drug dealers, etc then I'm all for that. But it would have been better to stop and think about what type of law would target those groups. Maybe there are already laws to help that don't cast such a broad net. Because in the process of taking back the park from some pervert, they also took it away from regular people. I'd be willing to bet that the number of regular people who can no longer visit the park is a lot higher than the number of perverts.

 

And I don't feel at all deprived of my rights since I've already stated I can't even tell you where there is a park around me with this stupid rule. But if we all sit back and play dumb until it happens to us... it'll be too late. But you are right again about one thing. Complaining about it on a geocaching chat room isn't going to fix anything.... just like that law.

 

Perhaps we should allow the perverts to take thier hold of all the parks instead of a few, and the parents can keep the kids locked in the house where they feel safe?

No... just go to the park and feel the same level of discomfort that they probably should be feeling 75% of the time they are out of the house. Bad things can happen anywhere if you're not looking. If there are seriously a few parks were the perverts just openly hangout and have a hold on the park... by gosh send a patrol car over there and start rounding up the perverts.

My apologies for the confusion. I was assuming folks were aware of the reasons these laws were made.

 

As far as the reference of not feeling safe 75% of the time they are out, they may have gained an addition 5-10%. Long trips are made with a bunch of little steps. There's a quote out there to that effect.

[Jeremy]

Simpsons imitate life, imitate Simpsons. Anyone remember this episode?

 

Marge Versus Singles, Seniors, Childless Couples, Teens and Gays

Maggie is among the babies who riot at a kiddie concert, prompting a backlash by single childless citizens, who organize against kids and families.

 

I really try to feel like someone is getting targeted or discriminated against, but my empathy arrow fell to zero long ago.

[+TotemLake]

No, I wouldn't jump that far to an extreme assumption such as that. I just feel that other folks have rights also. Including th eright to feel safe.

 

But you would encourage their "right to be safe" by infringing upon my rights to the same public resource. So yes, that is pro police state. Call a skunk by any other name, but it still stinks.

 

Here's the issue as I see it, the woman was cited for not being accompanied by a child in a park under a law whose spirit of intent was to prevent predators from lurking.

 

The police did their job, no question about it. It's the politicians who failed the population, and the population who failed themselves for allowing the scoundrel and the law to stay put.

 

Tell me that was a well written law and the innocent should suffer over it, and I will always say bulloney. I should not have to prove myself innocent of predatory actions just because I sat my butt on a bench in the park paid for by the citizen's tax dollars. If it is to be an exclusive park, then make the users pay for it and turn it into a private property park.

[+mini cacher]

Long trips are made with a bunch of little steps. There's a quote out there to that effect.

yes.. and it might go something like this: You can boil a live frog without a lid if the water temperature rises slowly enough.

[+Renegade Knight]

..."Playground Rules Prohibit: Adults Except in the Company of Children."...

That is so funny.

 

Adults accompany children. Not vice versa. The law is exactly backwards, or the sign is.

[+Yamahammer]

TotemLake,

Then how do you propose the parks made safe??? You have concerns about what your rights are. You argue against police protection. What is your solution to prevs in the parks??? And they are there. Let's not be naive here. What of the parents of the children? Do not they not deserve the same protection from prevs??? Vigilante is not the answer.

 

Lawmakers make decisions every day that goes against someone and for others. Since children have no way to protect themselves, it is up the lawmakers and law enforcement to do so. I can live with a few inconviences in order to let children be children. It's a very small sacrifice. Very small. Can you not?

 

[+Ambrosia]

TotemLake,

Then how do you propose the parks made safe??? You have concerns about what your rights are. You argue against police protection. What is your solution to prevs in the parks??? And they are there. Let's not be naive here. What of the parents of the children? Do not they not deserve the same protection from prevs??? Vigilante is not the answer.

 

Lawmakers make decisions every day that goes against someone and for others. Since children have no way to protect themselves, it is up the lawmakers and law enforcement to do so. I can live with a few inconviences in order to let children be children. It's a very small sacrifice. Very small. Can you not?

 

Children do have ways to protect themselves. It's called parents.

[Frankyguy]

Reading Anonymous' log only strengthens my thoughts.  The vast majority of laws on the books are there for valid reasons and they are typicaly applied in the manner in which they are intended.  Yes, we can comntinue to pick at them to our hearts (dis)content.  We can always find ways why "this" law should not apply to "me".

 

If the neighborhood does not like me hanging out in the kid's playground when my kid isn't with me, I can respect thier position and I will walk my dog or eat my lunch elsewhere.  We need to get our parks back.  People have the right to feel safe.  If giving up my right of using the park help folks fell better, then I won't be selfish.  Let them enjoy thier park.

 

For the record...  when my kid is with me, I tend to put my 46 yr old butt in the swings also.

I have to agree with Benjamin's quote below;

 

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary

safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin

Very valid quote. It's context and how you intended for it to be applied is a question.

 

I believe Ben was refering to was surrendering to your adversaries to gain temporary safety, and in doing so, thier cause would be allowed to propogate.

 

From one perspective, one could say that those who seek safety are cowards. I do not chose that interpretation.

 

I look at it as folks who fight back to those who would persue thier own selfish causes. Those of would use the park to stalk childeren, to use/pedal illicit drugs, to claim it for thier gangs, or whichever illegal reasons. Rather than seek temporary safety in thier homes, they did something. They fight using the system, not through brute force.

 

I do not believe that seeking safety is being a coward. I believe we all as citizens have the right to feel safe in our homes and when we walk down the street and when are children are at the parks playing. What I do not believe is that we give away those rights to safety, to laws which rob us good citizens of our rights to liberty because we fail to deal with the criminals who perpetrate this upon our children. Too often we seek to treat the symptom instead of the disease itself. Many Americans as do I believe there needs to be much harsher laws against those who prey upon our children. Many will disagree with me but I believe those who do prey upon our children (sexually) if found guilty should be locked up for the rest of their natural lives. No exceptions. How many agree that America has become soft on crime?

Edited September 30, 2005 by Frankyguy

[+Ambrosia]

Reading Anonymous' log only strengthens my thoughts.  The vast majority of laws on the books are there for valid reasons and they are typicaly applied in the manner in which they are intended.  Yes, we can comntinue to pick at them to our hearts (dis)content.  We can always find ways why "this" law should not apply to "me".

 

If the neighborhood does not like me hanging out in the kid's playground when my kid isn't with me, I can respect thier position and I will walk my dog or eat my lunch elsewhere.  We need to get our parks back.  People have the right to feel safe.  If giving up my right of using the park help folks fell better, then I won't be selfish.  Let them enjoy thier park.

 

For the record...  when my kid is with me, I tend to put my 46 yr old butt in the swings also.

I have to agree with Benjamin's quote below;

 

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary

safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin

Very valid quote. It's context and how you intended for it to be applied is a question.

 

I believe Ben was refering to was surrendering to your adversaries to gain temporary safety, and in doing so, thier cause would be allowed to propogate.

 

From one perspective, one could say that those who seek safety are cowards. I do not chose that interpretation.

 

I look at it as folks who fight back to those who would persue thier own selfish causes. Those of would use the park to stalk childeren, to use/pedal illicit drugs, to claim it for thier gangs, or whichever illegal reasons. Rather than seek temporary safety in thier homes, they did something. They fight using the system, not through brute force.

 

I do not believe that seeking safety is being a coward. I believe we all as citizens have the right to feel safe in our homes and when we walk down the street and when are children are at the parks playing. What I do not believe is that we give away those rights to safety, to laws which rob us good citizens of our rights to liberty because we fail to deal with the criminals who perpetrate this upon our children. Too often we seek to treat the symptom instead of the disease itself. Many Americans as do I believe there needs to be much harsher laws against those who prey upon our children. Many will disagree with me but I believe those who do prey upon our children (sexually) if found guilty should be locked up for the rest of their natural lives. No exceptions. How many agree that America has become soft on crime?

Yes. We get nervous, and then we are willing to give up certain rights to feel safer, and then where does it stop? Seriously? We cannot think of just the here and now, but think of the future and where our rights can slowly be taken away until there are none left.

[+Lil Devil]

You know, every time I see this topic in the index, I always see an extra "h" in the middle of the title

 

I wonder if the thread would still reach 4 pages if that "h" was really there

[+Team Perks]

You know, every time I see this topic in the index, I always see an extra "h" in the middle of the title

 

I wonder if the thread would still reach 4 pages if that "h" was really there

Depends. Would your child have to be there, watching you?

[+Renegade Knight]

So...the ice cream truck comes along and the park empties of kids...whoops. Crisis. Better call for backup. The kids are now truant and the parents are all childless in a park. Looks like it's time to call in child services as well because clearly any responsible parent wouldnt' be serving time in jail.

[Jeremy]

So...the ice cream truck comes along and the park empties of kids...whoops. Crisis. Better call for backup. The kids are now truant and the parents are all childless in a park. Looks like it's time to call in child services as well because clearly any responsible parent wouldnt' be serving time in jail.

I can picture you stopping and starting repeatedly through a blinking red light.

 

If all of you feel so strongly about the slippery slope to a police state, do your part to change the law. Otherwise you are just as bad as the lawmakers who make these laws you disagree with. You have met the enemy and it is you. Get off the swing and do something about it Bob. I personally think the water is fine and so is this law so you better do something about it before the jackbooted thugs start stomping on your neck

[+Ambrosia]

[Jeremy]

Yes.  We get nervous, and then we are willing to give up certain rights to feel safer, and then where does it stop?  Seriously?  We cannot think of just the here and now, but think of the future and where our rights can slowly be taken away until there are none left.

You should stop thinking so much and start doing something.

 

[edit: below:]

 

I'm modding myself from the discussion for taking this to far off topic. I sort of agreed at the beginning that this only barely relates to geocaching though there are many caches that exist in playgrounds and these kinds of laws affect geocaching even in a small way. However I do agree that this has at least been talked out where geocaching is concerned and it has moved on into the "little steps to a police state" which is always one of those arguments that are too high in the air to be swiped at so I'll leave it be. If anyone can save this topic and relate it back to geocaching, please do.

Edited September 30, 2005 by Jeremy

[Clan Riffster]

1) What is your solution to prevs in the parks?

 

2) I can live with a few inconviences in order to let children be children. It's a very small sacrifice. Very small.

1) = Parents.

 

2) = How noble of you to make such a sacrafice. My problem is not with folks who want to give up their rights. By all means. Give up whichever of your rights you feel are necessary to protect the kids. 1st ammendment, 4th ammendment, don't matter to me one bit. Where I draw the line is when you, in your infinate wisdom, decide that you should give up my rights as well. Our illustrious government has one again decided that I, (a person who has never been convicted of a crime), should be punished for obeying the law. I should not be allowed in a public park, which I helped to pay for.

 

Whils't we're tossing quotes about willy nilly, allow me to share a few of my favorites;

An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so.

Mohandas Gandhi

 

An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.

Martin Luther King

 

Any law which violates the inalienable rights of man is essentially unjust and tyrannical; it is not a law at all.

Maximilien Robespierre

 

It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.

George Washington

[+Ambrosia]

Yes.  We get nervous, and then we are willing to give up certain rights to feel safer, and then where does it stop?  Seriously?  We cannot think of just the here and now, but think of the future and where our rights can slowly be taken away until there are none left.

You should stop thinking so much and start doing something.

 

[edit: below:]

 

I'm modding myself from the discussion for taking this to far off topic. I sort of agreed at the beginning that this only barely relates to geocaching though there are many caches that exist in playgrounds and these kinds of laws affect geocaching even in a small way. However I do agree that this has at least been talked out where geocaching is concerned and it has moved on into the "little steps to a police state" which is always one of those arguments that are too high in the air to be swiped at so I'll leave it be. If anyone can save this topic and relate it back to geocaching, please do.

You actually do not know what I am doing, now do you?

 

[Jeremy]

Since there was a post after my edit, I'll point to that post in an attempt to salvage the topic and relate it to geocaching. Any takers?

[+Renegade Knight]

...I can picture you stopping and starting repeatedly through a blinking red light....

That would be from being induced into a seisure just as my foot was touching the brake. Next time stay out of the control box, speeding up the blink rate is a bad idea.

 

I was really hoping for a thread ending post, but I lost the bet.

[Jeremy]

Next time stay out of the control box, speeding up the blink rate is a bad idea.

 

I was really hoping for a thread ending post, but I lost the bet.

Good point . I think tasking someone with bringing this topic back to geocaching may be the topic killer though.

[+Ambrosia]

Next time stay out of the control box, speeding up the blink rate is a bad idea.

 

I was really hoping for a thread ending post, but I lost the bet.

Good point . I think tasking someone with bringing this topic back to geocaching may be the topic killer though.

But then, in order to bring back OT, we would have to think.

[+Renegade Knight]

To end on a seriouse note.

 

Amost every post in this thread is right. Most people are arguing opposite sides of the same coin. Yes it's a dumb law. It's also a valid law. It does discriminate but not against a proteted class. It's ok to say "this park is for kids" and it's better to say "this park is for everone and the play equipment is for kids". The solution is to get back in touch with government. You have to be proactive always, or you get laws like this in an effort to solve a problem that may not be the real problem.

 

Geocaching tie in.

 

It's like the proposed laws in South Carolina. Geocachers got involved and they did have an impact.

Edited September 30, 2005 by Renegade Knight

[+JohnnyVegas]

I had a huge airdale not on a leash jump up on me. "Oh, he only want's to play" the owner said.

I had an unleashed dog go after one of my catrs once in my front yard. The owner was walking the dog without a leash and thought it was real funny that his dog went after by cat. I told him if I ever saw his dog on my property again I would kill it, Yes I was serious and I would have killed the dog. It seams a great number of dog owners are idiots

 

I have been biten my several dogs that were off their leash while the owners watched, the owners alway say "Oh he was just playing"

 

Edit to add:

My next reponce may be "On never mind me, I was just palying when my knife got stuck in your dog"

Edited September 30, 2005 by JohnnyVegas

[+sept1c_tank]

Geocaching is fun.

[+Salvelinus]

You would be correct if the rules said "Adults who don't have any children cannot use the park"... but it doesn't say that.

 

It says "Adults who use this park must accompany a child".

And they are fundamentally different, how?

 

They both exclude me, a law abiding tax payer, from stepping foot onto public property, which I helped pay for, simply because I choose not to propagate. There statement specifically prohibits adults without children from entering, therefore it cannot be argued that the park is open for everyone.

 

It's laws like this that only serve to punish the average law abiding citizen, while not affecting the actions of the law violating citizen in any measurable way. Kinda like most gun laws. Only those folks who obey the law are punished.

I'm a single, childless geocacher. My nephews often like to geocache with me. If a kid's themed cache existed in that park I could legally enter the park and find the cache, if I brought them along. Even if I had children of my own, I would not be allowed in that park by myself. Nobody is being excluded because of who they are. The law only provides a condition that must be met in order to be allowed entry.

 

I guess you would argue that park fees to be paid before being allowed entry into a park (ie. Yellowstone National Park) are discriminatory against anyone who can't afford to pay the fee. Especially vagrants, hermits and hobos.

 

Salvelinus

Edited September 30, 2005 by Salvelinus

[+Moose Mob]

I can see it now. Walking up to a street corner and approaching a kid standing on there..

"Hey kid, I'll give you a shiny new quarter if you help me find this geocache in the back of that park over there."

[+Yamahammer]

Good grief!

 

[+JohnnyVegas]

I can see it now. Walking up to a street corner and approaching a kid standing on there..

"Hey kid, I'll give you a shiny new quarter if you help me find this geocache in the back of that park over there."

A quarter, you got to be kidding. Most kid are going to want at least $10.00 before you even get their attention.

Besides if it would cost you money to find the cache then it is a commercial cache and should be archived.

[+mini cacher]

Talk about being creepy... what's more creepy than some guy offering a kid $10 to come with him to the park? Personally, I'd rather have a person come in without a kid than go rent one. But if that is what you have to do to abide by this law, then I guess that is what you have to do.

[+JohnnyVegas]

Hows this for an idea. If a group of people want to have a play ground that only kids can enter there is a simple way to set this up.

They approach the local city officials and make an offer to purchase or lease a small section in a park for a Kids Play ground, Then they can put a fence around it to keep people out of the new private park. I have seen playgrounds like this in California, they have been very well thought out and are put together better than any city paid for playground that I have ever seen.

So creates a privalty owned playground and the owners can set their own rules as to who can enter the Play ground. Of course the owners of the park would be required to pick up the cost of insurance and Maintance of the play ground. THis take this cost off the back of the tax payers.

[+Salvelinus]

I can see it now.  Walking up to a street corner and approaching a kid standing on there..

"Hey kid, I'll give you a shiny new quarter if you help me find this geocache in the back of that park over there."

Or you could just not do the cache.

[Clan Riffster]

Salve, we obviously won't agree on this topic. Instead of both of us wasting our time debating the finer points of symantics with someone who has a completely different outlook than the other, let's go Geocaching.

 

Now to try & steer this back on topic;

Public parks should be open to the public for any activity that does not endanger the public or the park.

[+JohnnyVegas]

I can see it now.  Walking up to a street corner and approaching a kid standing on there..

"Hey kid, I'll give you a shiny new quarter if you help me find this geocache in the back of that park over there."

Or you could just not do the cache.

I will not do a cache that is on or very close to school poperty if there are classes in session. I also will not do a cache in and area that I feel may be unsafe. But I want to decide for myself were I will or will not go. I do not need a bunch of goverment pencil pushing do nothings resticting my freedom of movement.

[+The Jester]

I can see it now.  Walking up to a street corner and approaching a kid standing on there..

"Hey kid, I'll give you a shiny new quarter if you help me find this geocache in the back of that park over there."

Or you could just not do the cache.

What sort of radical answer is that! Of course I have to do the cache, it's on my PDA & GPSr!

 

I want it! I want it! I want it!

[+budd-rdc]

Since the discussion has cooled off a bit, I'll try to make my comments more relevant to Geocaching...

 

I've looked for caches at children's playgrounds on numerous occasions. It seems kids don't have a problem with that (some have started a conversation with me during the search) but I always get the "laser pointer eyes" from watchful parents, especially moms.

 

I have no problems with caches placed in "standard locations" like benches, tables, trees, etc., but I DO object to their placements on kids' play structures, since I would be too close to the children. Easier to search these types at night, but then instead of moms, you get the local law enforcement coming over questioning you. (this has happened to me a few times).

 

The law discussed on this thread is petty and ridiculous in my eyes, but maybe we ought to avoid play structure hides in the future to prevent backlash laws like this to be passed in other areas of the country.

[+TotemLake]

TotemLake,

Then how do you propose the parks made safe??? You have concerns about what your rights are. You argue against police protection. What is your solution to prevs in the parks??? And they are there. Let's not be naive here. What of the parents of the children? Do not they not deserve the same protection from prevs??? Vigilante is not the answer.

 

Lawmakers make decisions every day that goes against someone and for others. Since children have no way to protect themselves, it is up the lawmakers and law enforcement to do so. I can live with a few inconviences in order to let children be children. It's a very small sacrifice. Very small. Can you not?

 

Taking this conversation to a friendly PM to you.

 

JohnnyVegas Posted on Sep 30 2005, 10:00 AM

They approach the local city officials and make an offer to purchase or lease a small section in a park for a Kids Play ground, Then they can put a fence around it to keep people out of the new private park.

 

Imagine that...

 

TotemLake Posted: Sep 29 2005, 06:47 PM 

 

If it is to be an exclusive park, then make the users pay for it and turn it into a private property park.

 

GMTA

Edited September 30, 2005 by TotemLake

[+Ambrosia]

I can see it now.  Walking up to a street corner and approaching a kid standing on there..

"Hey kid, I'll give you a shiny new quarter if you help me find this geocache in the back of that park over there."

Or you could just not do the cache.

What sort of radical answer is that! Of course I have to do the cache, it's on my PDA & GPSr!

 

I want it! I want it! I want it!

Yeah.

[+Salvelinus]

Public parks should be open to the public for any activity that does not endanger the public or the park.

Like pedifiles who stalk kids in parks designed exclusively for kids?

 

Maybe we won't agree, but I don't think your seeing what the law is saying. Whether you have kids or not has no bearing on enforcement of the law.

 

It's so simple: If you want to visit the park you must bring along a kid. No different than if you want to visit Yellowstone Park you must pay the enterance fee.

 

Stop letting your emotions dictate your thought and you will see it clearly.

[+mini cacher]

It's so simple: If you want to visit the park you must bring along a kid. No different than if you want to visit Yellowstone Park you must pay the enterance fee.

They are not the same. Usage fees for national, state, local, etc parks go toward further up-keep of the park. Many people feel this sucks as well but at least it puts more of the cost on the people who actually use the park. This is not the same as bringing a child to get into the park... unless you intend to make the child pick up cigs and mow the grass.

 

Perverts have kids too. How does this rule stop them from stalking kids in parks?

 

Stop letting your emotions (and paranoia) dictate your thought and you will see it clearly.