Jump to content

Cops destroy another cache


Okiebryan
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

 

Roddy, don't take this as a personal assault, but you're citing the article as fact when it supports your opinion and you're citing the article as speculation when it supports knowschad. You are also stating facts that do not appear in the article at all.

 

Based on the information in the new article, painfully short and vague piece of journalism that it is, I'm not convinced that this was an actual "geocache" listed under this site or any other.

But this article is all we have, so let's review...

 

Your statement "After all, the LEO also reported to the press they found drug related items?" is not supported by any account of the incident. I am basing my ASSUMPTION on the title of the article and the facts you pointed out. Someone MUST have stated something to the etent that they suspected the contents to be drug related and I doubt the reporter made that up on his own...therefore, I ASSUME the LEO made the comment to the reporter. :) I should have said apparently or I suspect...

 

They said battery parts- they also said lithium-ion batteries. Not lithium batteries. One is associated with meth production, one is not. Police error or media error? Who knows? We don't know for sure who said what and if the ion part was a mistake.

 

The only "fact" attributed to the police is this single line: "Lithium ion battery contents are reactive with water and could have posed a fire hazard, according to police." More evidence which tends to point to HAZARDOUS MATERIAL. Good enough info to back the actions taken IMHO.

 

The police are never attributed to identifying the container and its contents as meth lab or meth related.Someone MUST have since the reporter reported it as such. I doubt the reporter made assumptions as that's not what they are supposed to do...but who knows. However, my knowledge (as I have stated several times) points me to believing the possibility is great due to the "battery parts" comment!

 

The only apparent connection to meth comes from this line: "Someone alerted the Special Projects Unit on Tuesday morning about methamphetamine-related items that were inside a geocache near the lake." Read my comment directly above this...in red.

 

Sounds to me like somebody found either a cache or what they assumed to be a cache and made the connection due to the contents that it was meth related. We agree on this one too.

 

It then appears that the police removed the container due to the fire hazard. Or possible drug connection as the article supports.

 

No mention of a log. No mention of identifying labels. No mention of who found the "cache" or if the finders identified it as a cache or if the media made this jump to conclusions. Or mention of "McToys" or "golfballs"! :)

 

We agree though you don't like how I made my assumptions! :)

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to comment

We agree though you don't like how I made my assumptions! :)

 

We disagree that there's any reason to believe that the police removed the container based solely on the facts as presented in the article for drug related reasons.

 

The police are never attributed to having removed them based on meth associations.

 

The only person that appears to have called this meth related or a geocache for that matter is the unnamed, unquoted, unidentified person or persons who is reported as having found the container. Just because Joe finds batteries in the woods that doesn't make it a meth lab, and just because Joe finds a container in the woods that doesn't make it a geocache. Reporting, without any justification (beyond some guy thought it might be) as either is irresponsible and sloppy.

 

Unless the writer directly attributes an action to the police or a statement to the police we cannot, in good faith, assume that these are the actions or beliefs of the police. It sounds more to me like the writer went in looking for a good meth story with some geocaching flavor. The title of the article is misleading and is not backed up by any sources or facts. The article has factual inconsistencies.

 

For the record, I don't have a problem with the actions taken. I do have a problem with the reporter trying to tie in geocaching and meth production when there is no clear evidence to support either presented in the article.

 

Until somebody comes up with a GC number I'm not going to assume it's anything other than somebody's trash and police responding in a reasonable manner, given the circumstances.

Link to comment

We agree though you don't like how I made my assumptions! :)

 

We disagree that there's any reason to believe that the police removed the container based solely on the facts as presented in the article for drug related reasons.

 

The police are never attributed to having removed them based on meth associations.

 

The only person that appears to have called this meth related or a geocache for that matter is the unnamed, unquoted, unidentified person or persons who is reported as having found the container. Just because Joe finds batteries in the woods that doesn't make it a meth lab, and just because Joe finds a container in the woods that doesn't make it a geocache. Reporting, without any justification (beyond some guy thought it might be) as either is irresponsible and sloppy.

 

Unless the writer directly attributes an action to the police or a statement to the police we cannot, in good faith, assume that these are the actions or beliefs of the police. It sounds more to me like the writer went in looking for a good meth story with some geocaching flavor. The title of the article is misleading and is not backed up by any sources or facts. The article has factual inconsistencies.

 

For the record, I don't have a problem with the actions taken. I do have a problem with the reporter trying to tie in geocaching and meth production when there is no clear evidence to support either presented in the article.

 

Until somebody comes up with a GC number I'm not going to assume it's anything other than somebody's trash and police responding in a reasonable manner, given the circumstances.

 

You're making assumptions not based on the facts given. I see nowhere in that article that the reporter even talked to anyone other than the police. I do see where it says "someone reported to the special...". but nothing says the reporter talked to ANYONE other than the police. And again, as I said before, I am making assumptions based on what I am reading and my own knowledge. Are you assuming the police gave the reporter the name of the "someone"? Are you assuming the reporter arrived on the scene and then actually found that "someone" in the crowd or was pointed out by LEO or whatever? And again, I believe the title came after talking to the police. This is an assumption ONLY!

 

How can you say the only person that appears to have called this meth related or a geocache for that matter is the unnamed, unquoted, unidentified person or persons who is reported as having found the container? Nothing in the article points to this at all.

 

I never said the authorities DID destroy the container because of drug concerns, I have said all along this was MY opinion based on my knowledge of meth and from reading the article. The batteries MAY have been brought up solely as a way to back the fire hazard thought, but these WEREN'T batteries, they were battery parts. This is what I base my whole assumption on!

 

And lastly, where did I say they removed it based SOLELY on meth? Can you please point this out to me? If I did, I will be happy to fix that mistake!

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to comment

...Thank you for allowing me to present my perspective. I expect that I will get my share of "non" fan mail as a result of my posting. I am not saying that our way is always the best way. Its just where we are these days as opposed to the way we used to do things.

 

It's a good post.

Personally I don't mind if a cache is blown up as part of the larger effort. We have bomb squads and such because of a real problem.

 

My beef kicks in in how harmless items are handled after they are determined to be harmless. The responce I want from the Sheriff, Police Chief, etc. after the fact, comes down to. Varitions of "Hey, we live in a heightened state of awareness and false alarms are bound to happen. It means the system is working, as it should. Do not at all stop living your life, having fun, caching, or buying toys for your kids. Just be mindful of what happens when you leave those toys unattended at the airport, or place your cache in a suspicous location. We aren't here to stop the fun, but to ensure that we can keep on enjoying fun things".

 

I want them to believe that. I do not at all like when there is a call to "Ban everthing that causes false alarms because they are annoying".

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

...Just yesterday the state bomb squad handled a "suspicious package" found outside a Planned Parenthood facility. It was a paper bag containing what? Who wants to volunteer to go up and open the bag? Planned Parenthood, abandoned bag containing something left out front. Only safe way to handle something like that is blow it in place. Turned out to be some homeless person's canned food. At least that's what it was this time....

 

The right thing to do here is this. Say flat out that you blew up some canned foods for exactly the reasons laid out. When an officer insists on calling what turned out to be food "drug related items" then they just look stupid even with the Jedi Mind Trick training they get on how to speak to elicit a certain responce from who they are talkign too (press and juries for example).

 

If they figured out it was a cache and for whatever reason it actually did have drug related items in it say as much. "Caching is a family acvitity we don't know why this particualr cache had these items in it". Of course officers have as much trouble understanding the larger world as the press.

 

I didn't see anywhere, not even in the sparse little article, where the police ever said it was meth related - the PRESS said it, the caller reported it, but the cops cited "fire hazard" ... according to the sparse little article that the PRESS wrote.

 

Don't forget ... we're not reading the police report here.

Good point.

That said. Fire Hazard covers a lot of ground as well. Right now my office is a fire hazard. I've even got lithum 'accelerants' sequested here and there. :)

Link to comment

...Thank you for allowing me to present my perspective. I expect that I will get my share of "non" fan mail as a result of my posting. I am not saying that our way is always the best way. Its just where we are these days as opposed to the way we used to do things.

 

It's a good post.

Personally I don't mind if a cache is blown up as part of the larger effort. We have bomb squads and such because of a real problem.

 

My beef kicks in in how harmless items are handled after they are determined to be harmless. The responce I want from the Sheriff, Police Chief, etc. after the fact, comes down to. Varitions of "Hey, we live in a heightened state of awareness and false alarms are bound to happen. It means the system is working, as it should. Do not at all stop living your life, having fun, caching, or buying toys for your kids. Just be mindful of what happens when you leave those toys unattended at the airport, or place your cache in a suspicous location. We aren't here to stop the fun, but to ensure that we can keep on enjoying fun things".

 

I want them to believe that. I do not at all like when there is a call to "Ban everthing that causes false alarms because they are annoying".

 

 

RenegadeKnight, I nod my head in agreement with you. Thank you.

Link to comment

OK let's clarify some things. I was the cacher who started this whole process. I got to the GZ and the cache was already destroyed. The only thing that remained was the container so I knew I was at the correct location. In the area were a number of items that with limited education on meth, but I have had some, I believed could have been used in the production of Meth.

 

I contacted the cache owner who contacted someone they knew on the at the police department. That was the last I heard of it until I was told about this thread.

 

I am not at all surprised nor unhappy that this cache was removed. This was once a place that kids played. I was very concerned that if it was a meth lab that other cachers, especially those with children not get into what had the potential for a bad situation if it was one.

 

The reason I wanted to do this cache in the first place was it was near the home my daughter once owned. When I told her about it she was not surprised and pointed out that OK has long had a meth problem.

 

So to complete this discussion the cache had already been destroyed, LEOs were asked to be there, and they were doing what they should be doing trying prevent illegal drug production. The unfortunate thing is that happened to be at a geocache.

Link to comment

OK let's clarify some things. I was the cacher who started this whole process. I got to the GZ and the cache was already destroyed. The only thing that remained was the container so I knew I was at the correct location. In the area were a number of items that with limited education on meth, but I have had some, I believed could have been used in the production of Meth.

 

I contacted the cache owner who contacted someone they knew on the at the police department. That was the last I heard of it until I was told about this thread.

 

I am not at all surprised nor unhappy that this cache was removed. This was once a place that kids played. I was very concerned that if it was a meth lab that other cachers, especially those with children not get into what had the potential for a bad situation if it was one.

 

The reason I wanted to do this cache in the first place was it was near the home my daughter once owned. When I told her about it she was not surprised and pointed out that OK has long had a meth problem.

 

So to complete this discussion the cache had already been destroyed, LEOs were asked to be there, and they were doing what they should be doing trying prevent illegal drug production. The unfortunate thing is that happened to be at a geocache.

 

THANKS for the clarification! I'm glad to hear my suspicions were somewhat on target, too bad that it was a cache that some druggies decided to ruin though! THANKS for taking the time to get it cleaned up and THANKS for clearing up the confusion in here!

Link to comment

OK let's clarify some things. I was the cacher who started this whole process. I got to the GZ and the cache was already destroyed. The only thing that remained was the container so I knew I was at the correct location. In the area were a number of items that with limited education on meth, but I have had some, I believed could have been used in the production of Meth.

 

I contacted the cache owner who contacted someone they knew on the at the police department. That was the last I heard of it until I was told about this thread.

 

I am not at all surprised nor unhappy that this cache was removed. This was once a place that kids played. I was very concerned that if it was a meth lab that other cachers, especially those with children not get into what had the potential for a bad situation if it was one.

 

The reason I wanted to do this cache in the first place was it was near the home my daughter once owned. When I told her about it she was not surprised and pointed out that OK has long had a meth problem.

 

So to complete this discussion the cache had already been destroyed, LEOs were asked to be there, and they were doing what they should be doing trying prevent illegal drug production. The unfortunate thing is that happened to be at a geocache.

 

Thanks for the clarification and for taking the time to respond. Hopefully this lays to rest alot of the speculation that was going on here. I apreciate you taking the time to report it and keep the rest of us and our children safe from these situations.

Link to comment

You're making assumptions not based on the facts given. I see nowhere in that article that the reporter even talked to anyone other than the police. I do see where it says "someone reported to the special...". but nothing says the reporter talked to ANYONE other than the police. And again, as I said before, I am making assumptions based on what I am reading and my own knowledge. Are you assuming the police gave the reporter the name of the "someone"? Are you assuming the reporter arrived on the scene and then actually found that "someone" in the crowd or was pointed out by LEO or whatever? And again, I believe the title came after talking to the police. This is an assumption ONLY!

 

Okay, you got me there. Your assumption is that the police confirmed it was meth related. It appears they did not and removed it for fire hazard reasons.

 

...these WEREN'T batteries, they were battery parts. This is what I base my whole assumption on!

 

I understand what you're getting at, that the batteries were taken apart for the chemical innards. I get that.

 

And lastly, where did I say they removed it based SOLELY on meth? Can you please point this out to me? If I did, I will be happy to fix that mistake!

 

I see the confusion. Poor sentence structure on my part. Let me try that one again:

 

We disagree that there's any reason to believe that, based solely on the facts as presented in the article, the police removed the container for drug related reasons.

 

I wasn't saying that you said there was only one reason for removal, I was saying that using only what's in the article I couldn't say for sure myself.

 

 

But now the cacher that found the darn thing shows up with facts and a first-hand telling of the tale. So we can both stop assuming.

Link to comment

OK let's clarify some things. I was the cacher who started this whole process. I got to the GZ and the cache was already destroyed. The only thing that remained was the container so I knew I was at the correct location. In the area were a number of items that with limited education on meth, but I have had some, I believed could have been used in the production of Meth.

 

Thanks for clearing this all up. You've done a much better job that the press did with this one.

 

Just so we can put aside more of the speculation that's been going on I've got a few questions, if you don't mind.

 

Were the items that indicated meth use in the container or were they laying nearby?

 

What kind of container was it? Can you describe how it was destroyed?

 

Where the batteries in the container? Any idea if they were lithium or lithium-ion?

Link to comment

Are we done now? I was just wondering if we could start a new forum and disagree on something else for awhile? B):):)

 

Im off today, its raining so I cant go out and play so I have the time to disagree. :)

 

Welcome to the forums!

 

Thanks Castle Mischief. Being an over achiever at times, I had to throw in my dollars worth in on this one. Look forward to the trying to follow along with the "Big Dawgs" as I am merely a pup.

Link to comment

So as it turns out, the Stillwater newspaper got it wrong. What they should have said was that a geocacher found drug related items while out enjoying his hobby, and notified police, who disposed of the items and the container.

 

Thanks for coming in a clearing this up. All I had to read was the articlette on the paper's website.

Link to comment

Are we done now? I was just wondering if we could start a new forum and disagree on something else for awhile? :P:):)

 

Im off today, its raining so I cant go out and play so I have the time to disagree. B)

Unless it is Texas sized gully washer 10 gallon rain, you can too cache in the rain!

But since you are playing in the sandbox let me welcome you to geocaching and the forums. Thanks for some very insightful posts. It's always refreshing when someone actually has some personal knowledge of a situation that is being discussed in here.

 

BTW I was one of the NC cachers quoted in that magazine that got you hooked. You're welcome. :)

Link to comment

Are we done now? I was just wondering if we could start a new forum and disagree on something else for awhile? :grin::):)

 

Im off today, its raining so I cant go out and play so I have the time to disagree. :P

Unless it is Texas sized gully washer 10 gallon rain, you can too cache in the rain!

But since you are playing in the sandbox let me welcome you to geocaching and the forums. Thanks for some very insightful posts. It's always refreshing when someone actually has some personal knowledge of a situation that is being discussed in here.

 

BTW I was one of the NC cachers quoted in that magazine that got you hooked. You're welcome. :)

 

Get out! So your one of the ones that took all my free time from me. Good to meet you. Yup, Im all in. It was an informative article. Geez, somebody actually read my profile. Thanks for the compliments and getting me in.

 

On the ligther side, so did the LEOs log the find? B)

Link to comment

OK let's clarify some things. I was the cacher who started this whole process. I got to the GZ and the cache was already destroyed. The only thing that remained was the container so I knew I was at the correct location. In the area were a number of items that with limited education on meth, but I have had some, I believed could have been used in the production of Meth.

 

I contacted the cache owner who contacted someone they knew on the at the police department. That was the last I heard of it until I was told about this thread.

 

I am not at all surprised nor unhappy that this cache was removed. This was once a place that kids played. I was very concerned that if it was a meth lab that other cachers, especially those with children not get into what had the potential for a bad situation if it was one.

 

The reason I wanted to do this cache in the first place was it was near the home my daughter once owned. When I told her about it she was not surprised and pointed out that OK has long had a meth problem.

 

So to complete this discussion the cache had already been destroyed, LEOs were asked to be there, and they were doing what they should be doing trying prevent illegal drug production. The unfortunate thing is that happened to be at a geocache.

 

Thanks for taking time to post on the cache. It always helps to know more of the real deal.

Link to comment

Maybe next time some will dispose of a thermous container of Anhydrous ammonia, Acetone, Drain cleaner (sulfuric acid), Engine starter (ether), Iodine, Heet/gasoline additives (methanol/alcohol), Muriatic acid, Red Devil lye, Sodium metal, Trichloroethane (gun cleaning solvent), Toluene, etc.

 

And maybe not. Can we just deal with what the situation actually is, rather than some wild strawman fantasy?

 

I work in the chemical industry. And your right with the exception of Drain cleaner. It's Caustic based rather than acid. Sulfuric acid is instant tissue damage and will even disolve through stainless steel. I commonly worked with Methanol, Tolulene, and acetone.

But getting back on topic,

My question is WHY would the cops think that a meth lab was in the works in the middle of the woods?

What probably happened was a geocacher disposed of their batteries and tossed them out near the geocache, then the geocache got muggled. It happens everyday.

Link to comment

Lithium ion batteries pose a fire hazard when combined with dihydrogen monoxide.

 

There's a good chance that the cops have lithium batteries in some of their electronics... which could be linked to the production of methamphetamine.

 

The cops are producing methamphetamine? Or are they just suspected of doing it?

Link to comment
If they have correctly identified the cells in question as Lithium-Ion, they've got some education still to come. The contents of a lithium-ion cell are NOT reactive with water. Lithium-ion cells use carbon for an anode and lithium cobalt dioxide for a cathode. The electrolyte is usually a lithium salt in solution. Nothing water reactive in that.

 

Only the older cells from the 70's and 80's that used lithium metal construction (Is anyone nutty enough to still manufacture this design?? Haven't seen one in ages.) were an issue. And wow, they could be hoppin' good fun if breached.

 

As someone pointed out earlier, I wonder if they (or most other LEO) know that there's a difference?

Link to comment

My question is WHY would the cops think that a meth lab was in the works in the middle of the woods?

Because that's where we often find the residue from the labs being disposed.

 

That's odd. Given that same information and experience, I'd assume that what had just been discovered was a meth lab dump site in the middle of the woods.

Link to comment

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...