jckatz Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 I guess I shouldn't be surprised, I discovered a new "to me" park geocaching and a local told me that Ishouldn't go there because it was dangerous, it is now my FAVORITE nature area locally. It even has an public works project shelter with fireplace. AWESOME. Anyways, everyone is so conditioned to be afraid in America I shouldn't be surprised cops are warning people against Geocaching because it might SCARE other people: This page has been printed from the following URL: http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/0206200...-scavenger.html 3-6-2007 Scavenger hunters warned By Elizabeth Dinan edinan@seacoastonline.com PORTSMOUTH -- Gamers playing Global Positioning System scavenger hunts can be charged with crimes, possibly felonies, police warned Monday. The announcement followed a Sunday police call from the Shaw's Supermarket at Southgate Plaza for a report about a suspicious package taped to an electrical box. Police Capt. Janet Champlin said officers and detectives were deployed to investigate the perceived public safety threat, which was later deemed to be part of a GPS scavenger hunt. The box is described by police as a small, metallic case that was duct-taped and attached with a metallic base to the electrical panel on an exterior supermarket wall. Investigating officers discovered the box was a "cache," or prize used to reward Web-based GPS game players who correctly follow geographical coordinates. Champlin said police are not disclosing further details about the game because "we don't want to encourage" similar activity. But, the police captain said, if players prompt "public alarm," causing a "reasonable person to become alarmed," police will press charges. discuss What do you think? Post your comments here! Suspicious boxes on the Seacoast are just a game "Since 9/11, suspicious activity has heightened everyone's suspicion level," she said. "We take these things very seriously." Champlin said charges would likely be disorderly conduct and police would seek restitution for investigating the calls. If the cost of an investigation exceeds $1,000, the crimes would be charged as felonies, she said. "In this case, officers and detectives were tied up for a time, and that costs taxpayers' money," she said. "It also means there's real crime not being investigated." The Portsmouth police warning about GPS scavenger hunts came less than a week after a panic in Boston caused highways and bridges to be closed. Devices attached to bridges and other spots in Boston turned out to be a publicity stunt for a Cartoon Network program. Two men were charged in the hoax, and Turner Broadcasting Systems and Interference Inc., owner of Cartoon Network, agreed on Monday to pay $2 million for its role. Champlin said there was no connection between the Boston incident and the warning issued by police in Portsmouth. GPS scavenger hunts played on private property with permission of the homeowner do not constitute a crime, Champlin said. Suspicious activity on public property that leads to a needless investigation will be prosecuted, she said. Police report there was a similar call on Nov. 11 when officers responded to a suspicious activity report at the base of the Piscataqua River Bridge over Interstate 95. Police then discovered a similar "cache" left by GPS scavenger gamers. "It's just common sense this would cause alarm," said Champlin. "And it's obvious these kinds of games are growing in popularity." This page has been printed from the following URL: http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/0206200...-scavenger.html Copyright 1999 - 2004 Seacoast Newspapers, a division of Ottaway Newspapers Inc., all rights reserved. Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 The beauty of it is that reasonable people are geocachers. Quote Link to comment
Dinoprophet Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 (edited) GPS scavenger hunts played on private property with permission of the homeowner do not constitute a crime, Champlin said. Suspicious activity on public property that leads to a needless investigation will be prosecuted, she said. I wonder if she knows that grocery store parking lots are not public property (I suppose they don't constitute homes, either, though). Does this mean suspicious activity on public property that leads to a successful investigation will not be prosecuted? Edited March 6, 2007 by Dinoprophet Quote Link to comment
Guyute1210 Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Since people won't quit placing micros in suspicious places including taping them to electrical boxes and inside lamp posts, I'm not suprised that the fuzz get's upset about suspicious packages placed in public. Quote Link to comment
Will Jeep for Cache Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Yep. It is all a matter of common since. I am in property/facilities management and if I noticed something attached in such a way to my building (even being a geocacher) i would be pissed. And, it may differ from state to state, but my in my experience, parking lots attached to private buisinesses ARE private property. AND the owner of that lot has ultimate responsability for anything that happens on that lot. So they have to watch their liability too. Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Since people won't quit placing micros in suspicious places including taping them to electrical boxes and inside lamp posts, I'm not suprised that the fuzz get's upset about suspicious packages placed in public. What makes a remote lamp post suspiciouse? Suspicion is all in the mind of the person who's observing. They are the ones exercising their judgment. I'd bet 95% of the time they are wrong. The police and others are hoping to catch the much smaller percentage of actual suspicious activity. The simple reality is that most caches are placed in cache worthy spots. Bombs are placed to cause death, injury, panic, and disruption. The two goal are not the same. The bomb is in the trash can at grand central station during rush hour. The cache is in the bushes 200' from the entrance. The bomb is on the main power pole carrying the power that serves 500,000 people. The cache is on an electrical box behind the strip mall. Geocaching is harmless and legal. It's the harmful and illegal activity that people need to be focused on. Some folks with authority tend to forget that and focuse on the wrong thing. They get frustrated when they spend a lot of time on something stupid even if it's nobodys fault or intent. They forget that when they wanted people to call in with that 95% of crap to catch that 5% of real, they themselves were not going to be able to perfectly filter the crap out and would respond. My training was very clear. "YOU DON'T THINK. YOU REPORT. OTHERS WILL DECIDE" That's all well and good, but not if it means harrassing the people that they serve and protect for the 95% of reports I'm going to be making that prove to be false. Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Yep. It is all a matter of common since. I am in property/facilities management and if I noticed something attached in such a way to my building (even being a geocacher) i would be pissed. And, it may differ from state to state, but my in my experience, parking lots attached to private buisinesses ARE private property. AND the owner of that lot has ultimate responsability for anything that happens on that lot. So they have to watch their liability too. Yes and no. A parking lot is a place of public accomodation, else the business could not invite customers. The invatation is automatic and presumed. The world is not yet so strict that I must present my papers at the check station if I'm going to cut across the mall's parking lot to get to where I'm walking. There are legal limits, and some parking lots are posted with city ordinaces etc. I can't set up house in a parking lot. As an aside I think it's pathetic that the laws on the books make the homeless automatily lawbreakers. If you are in facilities managment then you should know very well another very real problem. The left hand right hand issue. You may manage a facility for someone who in turn forgets to let you know everthing they are doing that impact what's going on with the facility you manage. There have been cases where permission was obtained and it did not change one thing about the outcome of a cache falsely reported as a suspicious object. Quote Link to comment
Guyute1210 Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Since people won't quit placing micros in suspicious places including taping them to electrical boxes and inside lamp posts, I'm not suprised that the fuzz get's upset about suspicious packages placed in public. What makes a remote lamp post suspiciouse? Suspicion is all in the mind of the person who's observing. They are the ones exercising their judgment. I'd bet 95% of the time they are wrong. The police and others are hoping to catch the much smaller percentage of actual suspicious activity. The simple reality is that most caches are placed in cache worthy spots. Bombs are placed to cause death, injury, panic, and disruption. The two goal are not the same. The bomb is in the trash can at grand central station during rush hour. The cache is in the bushes 200' from the entrance. The bomb is on the main power pole carrying the power that serves 500,000 people. The cache is on an electrical box behind the strip mall. Geocaching is harmless and legal. It's the harmful and illegal activity that people need to be focused on. Some folks with authority tend to forget that and focuse on the wrong thing. They get frustrated when they spend a lot of time on something stupid even if it's nobodys fault or intent. They forget that when they wanted people to call in with that 95% of crap to catch that 5% of real, they themselves were not going to be able to perfectly filter the crap out and would respond. My training was very clear. "YOU DON'T THINK. YOU REPORT. OTHERS WILL DECIDE" That's all well and good, but not if it means harrassing the people that they serve and protect for the 95% of reports I'm going to be making that prove to be false. I never said anything about remote lamp posts...I've never seen one in the woods, and that could be considered remote, but i digress... This really has nothing to do with intentions, or that 95% of reports are false reports. It has to do with what others perceive as a suspicious activity. Bombs may be placed to cause harm and usually in a place to get maximum damage, but in your example, a bomb in a bush 200' away from an entrance, could still kill lots of people, especially if at Grand Central Station or any other place that gets loads of people past there every day. Quote Link to comment
Will Jeep for Cache Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Yes and no. A parking lot is a place of public accomodation, else the business could not invite customers. The invatation is automatic and presumed. The world is not yet so strict that I must present my papers at the check station if I'm going to cut across the mall's parking lot to get to where I'm walking. There are legal limits, and some parking lots are posted with city ordinaces etc. I can't set up house in a parking lot. As an aside I think it's pathetic that the laws on the books make the homeless automatily lawbreakers. If you are in facilities managment then you should know very well another very real problem. The left hand right hand issue. You may manage a facility for someone who in turn forgets to let you know everthing they are doing that impact what's going on with the facility you manage. There have been cases where permission was obtained and it did not change one thing about the outcome of a cache falsely reported as a suspicious object. Yes Renegade, you are right that the public usually has a standing invitation to the shopping market lot, but the invitation stands as a means to accommodate travel to the business for participation in the business' services. My point is this: There are so many "No Skateboarding" signs at the entrances of parking lots because a few irresponsible skaters ruined the rep of the entire community. And it would be sad if “No Geocaching” signs started popping up because of the irresponsible few ruining the name of the rest of the community. And yes there is the problem of the right and left hand, but I would say that is the exception and not the rule. Quote Link to comment
Trinity's Crew Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 (edited) Since people won't quit placing micros in suspicious places including taping them to electrical boxes and inside lamp posts, I'm not suprised that the fuzz get's upset about suspicious packages placed in public. Why do you single out lamp post caches? It appears that ANY cache that arouses suspicion and involves a police investigation could lead to prosecution. ALL caches placed on public property are potentially at risk, even ammo boxes in the woods. Edit: Added quote Edit: Brevity Edited March 6, 2007 by Trinity's Crew Quote Link to comment
+Kit Fox Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Yet another reason to require written permission for any cache placed on commercial property. Didn't that cacher nearly commit geocide on these forums a while back? Quote Link to comment
Trinity's Crew Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 <snip> But, the police captain said, if players prompt "public alarm," causing a "reasonable person to become alarmed," police will press charges. GPS scavenger hunts played on private property with permission of the homeowner do not constitute a crime, Champlin said. Suspicious activity on public property that leads to a needless investigation will be prosecuted, she said. Where does it say commercial property? Quote Link to comment
+Kit Fox Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 <snip> But, the police captain said, if players prompt "public alarm," causing a "reasonable person to become alarmed," police will press charges. GPS scavenger hunts played on private property with permission of the homeowner do not constitute a crime, Champlin said. Suspicious activity on public property that leads to a needless investigation will be prosecuted, she said. Where does it say commercial property? The announcement followed a Sunday police call from the Shaw's Supermarket at Southgate Plaza for a report about a suspicious package taped to an electrical box. Police Capt. Janet Champlin said officers and detectives were deployed to investigate the perceived public safety threat, which was later deemed to be part of a GPS scavenger hunt. The box is described by police as a small, metallic case that was duct-taped and attached with a metallic base to the electrical panel on an exterior supermarket wall. Investigating officers discovered the box was a "cache," or prize used to reward Web-based GPS game players who correctly follow geographical coordinates. Quote Link to comment
Clan Riffster Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Where does it say commercial property? In the article: Shaw's Supermarket at Southgate Plaza Quote Link to comment
+Airmapper Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 I think most people have enough common sense not to put caches in places where they could be disruptive. Sadly, I think a too many people do not use their common sense and do it anyway. I think caches that put you in a position where you would look suspicious retrieving/ replacing it are rude, not only to the cacher (who may not even care) but mostly to the community and businesses nearby. It gives Geocaching a very bad appearance and annoys people not involved in the game. There are plenty of places to hide a cache where it is less likely to bother anyone or appear suspicious. If no area exists, then that area doesn't need a cache. My solution is I have stopped hunting these caches. If I have to look suspicious, or am in a high traffic area where it is likely someone will notice me, I will not seek the cache. I go with my gut, if I don't feel comfortable with searching, I move on to another area. A lot of times I will avoid caches placed in a city, simply because it is hard to weed out the disrespectful hides from the well done ones. Quote Link to comment
Guyute1210 Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Since people won't quit placing micros in suspicious places including taping them to electrical boxes and inside lamp posts, I'm not suprised that the fuzz get's upset about suspicious packages placed in public. Why do you single out lamp post caches? It appears that ANY cache that arouses suspicion and involves a police investigation could lead to prosecution. ALL caches placed on public property are potentially at risk, even ammo boxes in the woods. I'm sorry, but I didn't single out LPMs, I was also talking about electrical boxes, and they both involve areas near electricty that could arouse more suspicion than a guard rail micro, although the same thing could be said about them too. Yes, even ammo cans in the woods could raise suspicion, but there is less chance out in the woods, than in a busy shopping center, especially if they are a 4 mile hike into the woods, and not a park and grab. Most of the Ammocan's I've found in the woods are clearly labeled as a Geocaching game piece, by either black sharpie, or with a big green sticker. I have yet to see (not saying that they don't exist) a micro in an urban setting that says Geocaching game piece clearly written on the outside of the container. As far as, "ANY cache that arouses suspicion and involves a police investigation could lead to prosecution." This is far more less likely to happen in the middle of the woods b/c in most places my parts, you need permission from the DCNR or other land management, except SGL's. In fact, I'm in the process of getting permission for placement in a State Forest. The one I've placed in a SGL, the Game Commissioner knows where the container is, and also the Township Supervisor, even though there is no guidelines from Harrisburg about the placement of caches in SGL's. I do this out of courtesy and that I don't want my cache blown to bits by the bomb squad and then have charges pressed. As KitFox wrote, this would be a fine time to impliment a better system of getting/proving permission before caches are published on commercial property, and I agree. Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 ...I never said anything about remote lamp posts...I've never seen one in the woods, and that could be considered remote, but i digress... This really has nothing to do with intentions, or that 95% of reports are false reports. It has to do with what others perceive as a suspicious activity. Bombs may be placed to cause harm and usually in a place to get maximum damage, but in your example, a bomb in a bush 200' away from an entrance, could still kill lots of people, especially if at Grand Central Station or any other place that gets loads of people past there every day. The point I'm making is that bombs and caches are placed for different reasons. Those reasons dictate placment and also have patterns that are recognizable. Of course the USA is just learning all this. The authorites who made the statements that were quoted in the OP no doubt give training that says. "Report all suspicious activity and objects" Let those who have more information put the pieces together. You may think it's nothing but it could be part of a larger pattern. Those same authorites decide when and how to respond to any single reporting. Then they make a speech and say "we will prosecute any suspicouse activity that leads to wasted law enforcment time" Which of course was wasted because of EXACTLY how they set up the system to work. Not because of Joe Cacher or Mr. Businessman, or Eagar Father going about their lives. Yes there are things geocachers can do that could make these responses less likely. It's also a simple FACT that the people who created the system EXPECTED and ANTICIPATE false alarms. They just need to own up to it and instead of ratteling sabers say "we want people to report everthing. It's the only way to make sure that we won't miss something real. The occasioinal false responce will happen and we view it as a small price to pay to keep our freedom and to keep people safe". Consider if the same people who tell us to not think, just report, gave us all training to the extent they have on assessing threats, there would be a lot less reportings of flashlights, personal items, star wars toys, and the like. But they choose not to do that. That's fine but it has a price. Quote Link to comment
+baloo&bd Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 (edited) Nevrmind. Edited March 6, 2007 by baloo&bd Quote Link to comment
Trinity's Crew Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 (edited) Yes... the cache referenced in the article was placed on commercial property, but the threat of prosecution extends to ANY cache that arouses suspicion on PUBLIC property. So I guess my question can be refined to ask, "Where does it say the threat of prosecution limited to commercial property?" I just hate to see a thread that potentially affects ANY cache placed on public property in Portsmouth, NH turned into a LPC micro-haters thread. Edit: Clarified my earlier question for those who didn't (want to) understand what I was actually asking. Edited March 7, 2007 by Trinity's Crew Quote Link to comment
+Misha Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 (edited) First things first, it is not where it was hidden, so much as that it was hidden in a suspicious place without PERMISSION. I know that there are very few stores that would give us permission to hide on their property. I have suspicious caches, but they have permission given by the property owner. So if a cacher wishes to place caches without permission use good post 9-11 thought, and judgement. Place them in non powered sites such as a buggy coral, low sign, or in the greenery. Avoid telco, electrical and gas utilities, these will attract fear, and if this does not involve the cache owner, it may be another cacher like you or me who gets nabbed. Of course, try to hide in non urban sites, these should attract less negitive attitude, get some friends together and assemble a set like easy street GCVM7Z http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...8c-b273c62d8d5a, WTTB GC109N8 http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...6d-bae6050ed045 , or Puzzle street GCX00M http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...9c-43b9db5e6e58 Misha Edited March 6, 2007 by Misha Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Yes... the cache referenced in the article was placed on commercial property, but the threat of prosecution extends to ANY cache that arouses suspicion on PUBLIC property. I just hate to see a thread that potentially affects ANY cache placed on public property in Portsmouth, Maine turned into a LPC micro-haters thread. The statement was saber rattling. It was carefully prepared, fairly well worded, contained specific buzz words and was designed to elicit support for the law enforcement agency. There is not much real substance to it. It’s a play to create a negative perception about caching in the mind of the general public. It’s also designed to inspire some thought for when a cacher wants to place a stupid cache. Because it's saber rattling the message can be repeated over, and over, and over until the general public agrees with their assessment. An actual call to ban caching on public lands would actually have less effect because local cachers would rise to the challenge. Here, they don't, they say "stupid placment" post topics like this one and leave the larger threat, the negative perceptions about caching being spoon fed to the press which can later actually help a ban happen. Quote Link to comment
Trinity's Crew Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Yes... the cache referenced in the article was placed on commercial property, but the threat of prosecution extends to ANY cache that arouses suspicion on PUBLIC property. I just hate to see a thread that potentially affects ANY cache placed on public property in Portsmouth, Maine turned into a LPC micro-haters thread. The statement was saber rattling. It was carefully prepared, fairly well worded, contained specific buzz words and was designed to elicit support for the law enforcement agency. There is not much real substance to it. It’s a play to create a negative perception about caching in the mind of the general public. It’s also designed to inspire some thought for when a cacher wants to place a stupid cache. Because it's saber rattling the message can be repeated over, and over, and over until the general public agrees with their assessment. An actual call to ban caching on public lands would actually have less effect because local cachers would rise to the challenge. Here, they don't, they say "stupid placment" post topics like this one and leave the larger threat, the negative perceptions about caching being spoon fed to the press which can later actually help a ban happen. I agree with you, but if they had wasted time investigating an ammo box in a hollow tree, the article would read the same way. Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 ...I agree with you, but if they had wasted time investigating an ammo box in a hollow tree, the article would read the same way. True. Quote Link to comment
+baloo&bd Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Yes... the cache referenced in the article was placed on commercial property, but the threat of prosecution extends to ANY cache that arouses suspicion on PUBLIC property. So I guess my question can be refined to ask, "Where does it say the threat of prosecution limited to commercial property?" has anyone noticed that other than the railroad fiasco (which I believe was eventually overturned) we do not here about arrests, much less convictions? Have fun, even in the politics of fear being created in the media, trying for a conviction on anything more than littering, maybe tresspassing. Yes, I agree that there could be better placements but, please, they even blow up CD players found in churches now. Seems like maybe any terrorists might want to get their own "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner. Quote Link to comment
+fox-and-the-hound Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Permission. It's a beautiful thing. Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 ... 3-6-2007 2-6-2007 Scavenger hunters warned... Fixed. This article is a month old. I'm pretty sure that we did this thread last month when the article was new. Quote Link to comment
Will Jeep for Cache Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 the beautiful thing about forums is that those of use who missed the original discussion, can now participate and benefit from a similar discussion on the same topic. Quote Link to comment
+Prime Suspect Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 I guess I shouldn't be surprised, I discovered a new "to me" park geocaching and a local told me that Ishouldn't go there because it was dangerous, it is now my FAVORITE nature area locally. It even has an public works project shelter with fireplace. AWESOME. Anyways, everyone is so conditioned to be afraid in America I shouldn't be surprised cops are warning people against Geocaching because it might SCARE other people: Why does my post say Ringbone? Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 the beautiful thing about forums is that those of use who missed the original discussion, can now participate and benefit from a similar discussion on the same topic.So it's your position that the OP cut-and-pasted the entire article, but somehow the date got changed by accident? I smell a big honking troll. Quote Link to comment
Mr.Yuck Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 I guess I shouldn't be surprised, I discovered a new "to me" park geocaching and a local told me that Ishouldn't go there because it was dangerous, it is now my FAVORITE nature area locally. It even has an public works project shelter with fireplace. AWESOME. Anyways, everyone is so conditioned to be afraid in America I shouldn't be surprised cops are warning people against Geocaching because it might SCARE other people: Why does my post say Ringbone? C'mon, zero finds, making their very first forum post, and purposely changing the date at the top of the article to todays date on the text posted here, versus 2/6/07 on the website linked to? This is all the evidence you have? You're just one of those people who are "conditioned to be afraid" that he's talking about, aren't you? Quote Link to comment
Captain Clorox Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Greetings, Citizens of Groundspeak. Do not fear, for it is I, Captain Clorox. I was summoned here by the Emergency Hanes Beacon. My elite skilz tell us this: 1. The thread starter went to the "print friendly" version of the newspaper article to copy it for the forums. The print friendly page adds the URL and today's date, as displayed in the post. No deceptive intent there. 2. 'Tis odd that an account would be created in 2004, never find a cache or make a forum post, and then suddenly turn up to make this post. Odd indeed. 3. Working for the government is FUN. The Forum Justice League shall watch vigilantly. Quote Link to comment
+wimseyguy Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 (edited) Febuary 06, 2007 Advertise - Contact Info - Email Headlines - Home Delivery Specials - Place a Classified Ad - Submit Announcements - Site Map dang they went and blew up a perfectly good 2.5 year old sock and this was the best they could do! (Member Since: Friday, August 06, 2004) BTW: gamers play online games from the comfort and relative safety of home cachers get outside and find caches socks just stink up the place-but they can be fun to play with Edited March 7, 2007 by wimseyguy Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 ...has anyone noticed that other than the railroad fiasco (which I believe was eventually overturned) we do not here about arrests, much less convictions?... The Rainbow Bridge in Idaho resulted in a fine to the geocacher. A lot of the same rheteric was used by the sheriff. Quote Link to comment
+Confucius' Cat Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 My training was very clear. "YOU DON'T THINK. YOU REPORT. OTHERS WILL DECIDE" That's all well and good, but not if it means harrassing the people that they serve and protect for the 95% of reports I'm going to be making that prove to be false. I would suspect that that kind of training filters down (or up) quite a few levels. The whole "suspicious object" liability issue boils down to the seeming fact that NO ONE in authority has guts enough to THINK, look at the facts like a "reasonable person" and decide "this is harmless, nothing to see here, let's move on." Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.