Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 15
GOF and Bacall

Cache maggot arrested.

Recommended Posts

 

I'm still curious about the possibility of a judge declaring geocaches to be litter and what consequences that would have on the hobby.

 

I feel the same about many of the definitions that we see bandied about... perhaps while waiting for factual reports on the progress of the case, WE collectively could get our lawyers to put forth a definition of what WE consider some of these things to be. Properly considered of course... perhaps some Wiki dictionary or enclclopedia page to spread the word. Just what do WE think litter is... Personally I associate that with carelessly discarded wrappings and containers for one thing, perhaps other items might be as well, cigarette butts, all sorts of personal things. Whatever, it clearly comes short of what could be TRASH or Garbage..

Of course one would have to define them as well... perhaps on the basis of size, perhaps on the basis of sensory effect ( smell, appearance etc.) How about a firm definition of what a Geocache is... including the bit about NOT LITTER, GARBAGE or TRASH, definitely someone's property, absolutely not abandoned etc.

The site seems to indicate we have 3 million or so registered accounts, sure some are repeats or innactive.

But that is a sizeable slice of people who probably would agree to a properly defined term... especially if the more widely accepted legal terms are factored into the definition. There is a chance here to clean up some of the problems we face. By the way... just who 'owns' all that garbage, trash litter out there anyway? Some complain about cachers stuff ( a legal term) out there... how about all the hunting blinds, stands, rusting cars and a whole lot more that seems to be widely accepted as being OK?

 

Doug

Share this post


Link to post

According to Flask, he's a premium member.

 

i only draw my conclusion on that from the fact that PMO caches were as vulnerable as reg'lar ones.

 

Well, PMO status can be turned on and off at the click of a mouse, and is often used after a cache is stolen the first time. I think you would need a local (DNNSGPS or GEOLOBO) to verify this for sure (such as a brand new published cache being PMO from day one), but personally, I'm pretty sure I've seen evidence of the guy having been a premium member, and stealing PMO's.

 

One thing for certain, you can verify that he solved puzzles, and paddled to canoe caches by looking at Geolobo's hides. He was definitely persistent.

 

WOW - The last time I was on reading this topic was only 4 pages now it's up to 10!! Some interesting reading for a Saturday morning!!

 

We (local cachers) have had PM caches in hopes to catching the Thief. We made most of the caches PM and some were not. There was NO difference which ones he took. He took them ALL!!!!

 

When we click on the audit trail the last person to look at the cache was NOT the cache thief as we would look up the cachers stats (to see how many the cacher had found and where they were from)

 

I've had many caches stolen along with the rest of the local cachers. GeoLobo had a lot go missing that was set up for an event. When the event happened there was no caches to find because Cache Thief came through and stole them all!!!!! <_<

 

When there is an update on this I will post a new thread so folks don't have to weed through all these pages here.

Share this post


Link to post

If someone were to try to argue that a geocache was "litter" then the logical response IS to define what "litter" is.

 

Can we agree that litter is any discarded item that has served it's intended usefulness?

 

Under that definition, a geocache can not be litter until there is no longer a cache, or logsheet.

It would allow litter to be a piece of paper, discarded diaper, cigarette butt, toilet paper wad, discarded beverage bottle, McWrapper and everything else.

 

Then we would only have to focus on abandoned property which is easy enough to demonstrate by citing examples of cache owners who have gone back and retrieved their cache after it's been out for months or years.

 

With those two clauses, geocaches are not litter or abandoned property.

Share this post


Link to post

I know geocaches are not litter. I know that active caches are not abandoned property.

 

The question I am posing is what would a judge, faced with this case and possibly a defense that the guy was just removing litter, potentially determine a geocache to be.

 

If he were to determine that geocaches were litter, what, if any, affect would that have on geocaching?

 

I'm not a lawyer, but I do know that sometimes when a legal definition is required, it is not always what you would expect from a dictionary definition.

Edited by GeoBain

Share this post


Link to post

I know geocaches are not litter. I know that active caches are not abandoned property.

 

The question I am posing is what would a judge, faced with this case and possibly a defense that the guy was just removing litter, potentially determine a geocache to be.

 

If he were to determine that geocaches were litter, what, if any, affect would that have on geocaching?

 

I'm not a lawyer, but I do know that sometimes when a legal definition is required, it is not always what you would expect from a dictionary definition.

 

Right, which is why I would suggest to anyone who is defending a geocaching game piece, as a legitimate item and not litter or abandoned property, do so with the definitions I stated above.

 

Once you get a judge to determine that a geocache is NOT litter or abandoned property, the rest of the case is much easier.

Edited by bittsen

Share this post


Link to post

Not to be contentious, just to add my thoughts, while we all, as Geocachers, know caches are not litter, (with the exception of the ones that are truly abandoned by their owners, another topic, another time )I would think a Judge would not be easily swayed by the "litter" defense.

 

How many people go online and log a page describing their "litter" and where it could be found, much less show reasonable evidence they were "maintaining it"???

 

I would hope a Prosecutor could put down that argument pretty quick. I would like to think (no legal basis, just common sense) that if something was being maintained, it could hardly be considered abandoned.

 

Another good reason for CO's to maintain their caches, and log that online! <_<

 

Just offering a few thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post

Not to be contentious, just to add my thoughts, while we all, as Geocachers, know caches are not litter, (with the exception of the ones that are truly abandoned by their owners, another topic, another time )I would think a Judge would not be easily swayed by the "litter" defense.

 

How many people go online and log a page describing their "litter" and where it could be found, much less show reasonable evidence they were "maintaining it"???

 

I would hope a Prosecutor could put down that argument pretty quick. I would like to think (no legal basis, just common sense) that if something was being maintained, it could hardly be considered abandoned.

 

Another good reason for CO's to maintain their caches, and log that online! <_<

 

Just offering a few thoughts.

 

I know what you are saying and to a point I can agree. But there are precedents in other "sports".

Surveying flags on trees are not abandoned property. Firetacks for hunters are not abandoned property. Trail markers are not abandoned property.

 

I'm sure there is a long list of publicly placed items that are not abandoned property or litter that could be equated, in a court of law, with a geocache.

Share this post


Link to post

As an aside, Just look what they want to do with your cell phone conversations --YUP, they want to say that there is no expectation of privacy because you talk over the "air"

 

I talk over a wire too and you can bet I have a reasonable expectation of privacy there too.

Cell phones are in fact radios. Any radio signal can be easily intercepted. You can encrypt the signal, but you cannot prevent it from being heard. Therefore no radio signal, including cellular, has any expectation of privacy.

 

The issue of personal property ownership and theft-related law for caches left out in public has been discussed repeatedly in this forum with, to my knowledge, no definitive answer.

 

Hopefully that question will soon be answered.

 

I'm no expert but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn, and I believe that a cache wherever hidden remains the personal property of the cache owner, but I have seen no law to prove or disprove that belief.

 

I can also go to a box on the ground and clip in a couple of wires and intercept phone calls. But if I were caught doing so, I would still be locked up.

 

For the purpose of subverting wire tap laws so the FBI can listen in on my cell phone conversation, it is no different just because a cellphone uses a radio.

 

I do expect my cellphone conversation to be encrypted and therefore I do expect privacy.

 

First of all, if you clip any wires then you won't hear anything as the signal will be disrupted. Take a voltmeter and go in the box and find a pair of terminals with either 55 volts or 5.5 volts. If it is 55 volts then the phone is hung up, if it is 5.5 then someone is using it. You wont get shocked unless you are touching the terminal when an incoming call comes in as the voltage from the ringing spikes up to 110 volts (but it's not too bad) Cut the plug off of a 1 piece phone and attach 2 alligator clips. Attach them to a pair of terminals in the box until you hear a dial tone, then call the operator and ask them to make sure what number it is. They usually will tell you without any problem (just say you are doing some rewiring at the office) Attach a small voice activated recorder, which works well if you cut the microphone off and bridge a 3.3mf capacitor over the two wires. Then camoflage it in a small lock'n'lock and hope nobody finds it. You may want to take a scanner to find out if anyone calls in suspicious persons, however is you rent a van and act like a cable TV guy nobody will question you or notice that you are at the wrong box. Back in the old days a 4 channel scanner with frequency crystals from Radio Shack worked, but now the very expensive digital trunking ones are necessary.

 

I suppose we could all chip in to send bittsen over to NY to do some "monitoring", but then if they get caught it would look bad, and the guy will get plenty of symapthy and it would cause more cache thiefs to appear.

A better idea would be to put the judge in a very bad mood the day of the trial. We could send bittsen to break into the judge's house the night before and adulterate his breakfast cereal with urine. If he got caught, he could claim that he unfamiliar with the area, was sleepwalking and imitating a feral cat and thought that the cereal was kitty litter. If the judge doesn't eat cereal in the morning, but rather bacon and eggs, then it would be necessary to bribe his doctor to give him a cholesterol check and fake the results. It could take some time, but I think it could be pulled off. <_<:unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

 

4. The geocaching community itself is an affected entity, and has been for quite some time. I believe one appropriate way for the geocaching community to respond to such a situation is to put out a "Cache Maggot" or "To Cache a Thief" series of caches that all contain info from the news story and are placed at sites where caches were previously stolen. Pick the best examples, and let others learn about it in the future by seeking out those caches. Certainly the cache that Mr. Repek was arrested for taking would be one of the more significant ones in the series.

 

There are rational steps to be taken in every one of those groups, and the more successful outcomes are likely to be the least inflammatory.

 

which is why this one is just a bad idea all around.

What Flask said.

Share this post


Link to post

First of all, if you clip any wires then you won't hear anything as the signal will be disrupted. Take a voltmeter and go in the box and find a pair of terminals with either 55 volts or 5.5 volts. If it is 55 volts then the phone is hung up, if it is 5.5 then someone is using it. You wont get shocked unless you are touching the terminal when an incoming call comes in as the voltage from the ringing spikes up to 110 volts (but it's not too bad) Cut the plug off of a 1 piece phone and attach 2 alligator clips. Attach them to a pair of terminals in the box until you hear a dial tone, then call the operator and ask them to make sure what number it is. They usually will tell you without any problem (just say you are doing some rewiring at the office) Attach a small voice activated recorder, which works well if you cut the microphone off and bridge a 3.3mf capacitor over the two wires. Then camoflage it in a small lock'n'lock and hope nobody finds it. You may want to take a scanner to find out if anyone calls in suspicious persons, however is you rent a van and act like a cable TV guy nobody will question you or notice that you are at the wrong box. Back in the old days a 4 channel scanner with frequency crystals from Radio Shack worked, but now the very expensive digital trunking ones are necessary.

 

I suppose we could all chip in to send bittsen over to NY to do some "monitoring", but then if they get caught it would look bad, and the guy will get plenty of symapthy and it would cause more cache thiefs to appear.

A better idea would be to put the judge in a very bad mood the day of the trial. We could send bittsen to break into the judge's house the night before and adulterate his breakfast cereal with urine. If he got caught, he could claim that he unfamiliar with the area, was sleepwalking and imitating a feral cat and thought that the cereal was kitty litter. If the judge doesn't eat cereal in the morning, but rather bacon and eggs, then it would be necessary to bribe his doctor to give him a cholesterol check and fake the results. It could take some time, but I think it could be pulled off. <_<:unsure:

 

You know, it really is exciting when the phone rings and you are holding onto those wires. Talk about unexpected fun!!

 

Now don't be giving me any ideas about Cheerios or anything.

Actually, what you proposed would be outside of anything I would even consider. I used to like to do things that make people think they are going insane. Imagine opening your car door and seeing 10,000 crickets in your car, for example. Not that I would ever do that.... :huh:

One of the fun things I did when I was younger was to move my friends car. For weeks they were trying to come up with ways to make sure they weren't insane. One even went to the point to write a note as a reminder of where the car was parked.

 

One time my friend decided to get me back. All of a sudden one night there was pizza after pizza showing up at my door. Every pizza place that would deliver to my house was called. I also had all of the cab companies in town show up for a pick up. I felt sorry for the pizza restaurants and cab drivers though.

 

All of it came to a stop though when one friend went overboard. It ruined my car. There was even a really large fireball. That was a VERY exciting night. Luckily I wasn't hurt.

 

Ah, my younger days....

Share this post


Link to post

By this, a geocache wouldn't be litter and is actually permitted and allowed in NY State.

 

Edit: I don't want to overload a local site so I've attached the NY State issued geocache permit application.

 

 

NYStateapplication.png

Edited by bullygoat29

Share this post


Link to post

NYState Guidelines

 

 

By this, a geocache wouldn't be litter and is actually permitted and allowed in NY State.

 

That just means they are permitted and allowed in state parks, provided they meet all the qualifications spelled out in those guidelines.

 

Again, I'm not saying geocaches are litter. I don't believe they are at all.

 

What I am trying to point out is by involving the police and compelling an arrest on this guy, the question of whether or not a geocache could legally be viewed as litter is potentially brought into play.

Share this post


Link to post

You know, since New York recognizes geocaches as not being litter or abandoned property, the cache maggots defense is basically shot.

 

COOL!

Share this post


Link to post

a Theft is a theft is a theft

I hate these kind of people. I mean, really? Bolt Cutters?!? There is a name for these kinds of people, but i cant say it here <_<:unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

A Google search for : Paul Repak boonville now shows this discussion as the 4th search result. That kind of internet history is going to haunt him for years to come and is almost certainly going to be worse punishment than anything the law is likely to do.

 

It's a shame that virtuals are no longer allowed. After the trial is over, I was thinking that Lewis Rd in Boonville would be a great place for an appropriately titled virtual cache. A virtual cache would be preferable for obvious reasons.

Share this post


Link to post

A Google search for : Paul Repak boonville now shows this discussion as the 4th search result. That kind of internet history is going to haunt him for years to come and is almost certainly going to be worse punishment than anything the law is likely to do.

 

It's a shame that virtuals are no longer allowed. After the trial is over, I was thinking that Lewis Rd in Boonville would be a great place for an appropriately titled virtual cache. A virtual cache would be preferable for obvious reasons.

 

Dadgummit. And he probably figured the 1,000 mile canoe race on the Yukon River in Canada would show up on all the results for all eternity and be his legacy. Such is life. I'm not a Lawyer in York, Pa. but that's what shows up when I Google my name. If I was though, I could probably argue with Sbell111 about this situation. :)

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel

Share this post


Link to post

You know, since New York recognizes geocaches as not being litter or abandoned property, the cache maggots defense is basically shot.

 

COOL!

 

State park rules would not affect any cache other than one that could be linked to him in that jurisdiction. Since caches in state parks require a permit you would still have to look at the status of that particular cache.

 

If I were defending him - and if ACD was not on the table - I would not argue that caches are litter but focus on the cache at issue with the petty larceny charge. I would find out who owns the property or if the cache had permission from the owner/land manager. If the latter could not be proven, I would argue that whoever placed the cache did not have the right of possesion contemplated under the larceny law. Litter, abandonment, and other concepts might provide useful analogies but they don't resolve the issue, which would be a matter of first impression.

 

It would be surprising if it gets that far but it's interesting to think about.

Edited by Erickson

Share this post


Link to post

If it actually went to a hearing - wouldn't it be fun to have a courtroom full of local cachers, showing their support of geocaching.

Share this post


Link to post

If it actually went to a hearing - wouldn't it be fun to have a courtroom full of local cachers, showing their support of geocaching.

What difference would it make? It's not like you are allowed to 'boo' while viewing a trial.

Share this post


Link to post

You know, since New York recognizes geocaches as not being litter or abandoned property, the cache maggots defense is basically shot.

 

COOL!

The state will recognize the tires on your car as not being litter, but if you toss one into the woods, all bets are off. Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

If it actually went to a hearing - wouldn't it be fun to have a courtroom full of local cachers, showing their support of geocaching.

 

This is what a few of us local cachers plan to do!! :)

Share this post


Link to post

You know, since New York recognizes geocaches as not being litter or abandoned property, the cache maggots defense is basically shot.

 

COOL!

The state will recognize the tires on your car as not being litter, but if you toss one into the woods, all bets ares off.

 

If I put a game camera in the woods is it litter?

Share this post


Link to post

If it actually went to a hearing - wouldn't it be fun to have a courtroom full of local cachers, showing their support of geocaching.

 

This is what a few of us local cachers plan to do!! :)

 

When is the hearing?

Share this post


Link to post

 

If I put a game camera in the woods is it litter?

 

There is probably no hard and fast rule/law on this type of thing.

 

Is it being used as it was designed as in the case of a camera being attached to a tree in an an accepted manner. Is it there legally I.E. was permisson granted for the placement? How long has it been there? Can the alleged owner identified? Is there a name, address, and/or phone number posted on it? Is the owner willing and able to go to court to testify each and every time there's a court proceeding connected to the alleged theft? Just to name a few considerations that I could see coming up in a theoretical theft. If the answer to any of these, and/or others, is no, then why is it no.

 

Just a few things a judge is going to take into consideration if it comes to a hearing, or for that matter a prosecutor is going to look at before even making a decision whether or not to pursue a case. If a prosecutor isn't reasonably sure they can "win a case" they probably won't proceed forward with it. It's ultimately their call and not that of the alleged owner.

Share this post


Link to post

If it actually went to a hearing - wouldn't it be fun to have a courtroom full of local cachers, showing their support of geocaching.

What difference would it make? It's not like you are allowed to 'boo' while viewing a trial.

 

Sad puppy dog eyes and geocacher tshirts might help.

Share this post


Link to post

If it actually went to a hearing - wouldn't it be fun to have a courtroom full of local cachers, showing their support of geocaching.

What difference would it make? It's not like you are allowed to 'boo' while viewing a trial.

 

Sad puppy dog eyes and geocacher tshirts might help.

Or your avatar. Who could deny those eyes and happy feet?

Share this post


Link to post

You know, since New York recognizes geocaches as not being litter or abandoned property, the cache maggots defense is basically shot.

 

COOL!

The state will recognize the tires on your car as not being litter, but if you toss one into the woods, all bets ares off.

 

That is one of the worst analogies of all time. I can't even think of a way to make that come close to a comparison.

Share this post


Link to post

The other shortcoming about the abandoned property "defense" is that the defendant had knowledge that this cache, and other caches apparently, were active. The cache remnants and cache listings in his car refute the notion that the property was not being actively maintained. So he knew the caches belonged to someone, and he certainly knew they did not belong to him. He also knew they were placed there for others to come find them, which means he knew or should have known that those items were supposed to be left where they were found.

 

It is one thing to argue you can keep something you find in the woods if you hold a good faith belief that is has been abandoned, and another to claim you can take something when you know it is not abandoned. For that matter, since you know who the cache owner is, it seems like an open question whether you could claim ownership of it at all if you are the one removing it from where it was intentionally placed.

 

Lots of technical defenses are available to any prosecution that requires the intent of the defendant to be shown, so perhaps we can take that as a given. I just want to highlight that what the defendant knew about the item he was taking could be relevant.

 

The converse argument for litter is that it doesn't matter what the person who left it there thought about it if the law decides a cache is trash.

Share this post


Link to post

it in't one loc-n-loc.

 

it's hundreds of caches, logbooks, trinkets, trackables. a conservative estimate placed the average at one stolen cache each week since 2004.

 

it's hundreds of cache hunts gone bad for multiple cachers on multiple days.

 

when you go out after this guy, you can spend a whole day caching and come up with nothing, nothing, and more nothing. he carries bolt cutters. he solves puzzles. he has a premium account. he doesn't mind hiking miles to take your cache, only that he takes it. any cache within a couple hours' drive time of rome is/has been vulnerable.

 

it makes for a whole different kind of caching day when you spend ten or twelve hours caching and the only cache that's still there is the one you would have needed a chainsaw to get.

 

good people left the game because they couldn't keep caches on the ground, and most of what they went to find came up missing. other good people spent a significant amount of money replacing repeatedly missing containers.

 

one cache goes missing and you replace it. it goes missing a couple of times and you maybe think of putting it somewhere else.

 

when every cache in a sixty mile radius starts to be vulnerable, that's a problem. the difference is scale.

 

Flask - this is well said. I have watched this area of NY be ravaged by the thief for years. It is about much more than this one 'trinket'.

Share this post


Link to post

I think that every geocacher who has lost a cache container, and every cacher who has lost a TB or Geocoin in one of the local muggled caches should write a letter stating what was taken from them over the years. Maybe these letters could be read at the hearing.

Share this post


Link to post

I think that every geocacher who has lost a cache container, and every cacher who has lost a TB or Geocoin in one of the local muggled caches should write a letter stating what was taken from them over the years. Maybe these letters could be read at the hearing.

I think this suggestion would go nowhere, at least as far as court of law is concerned.

 

Now if all the caches taken by the perp could be proven taken by him, it may have merit and acceptable, but only those items taken by him. All others are irrelevant.

 

Without that proof, just because a cache, TB or geocoin has been taken has ZERO bearing on this case.

True, it matters to the geocaching community, but not this case.

Share this post


Link to post

what's really going to matter is that we're not going to have to cache in his stink anymore.

Share this post


Link to post

The other shortcoming about the abandoned property "defense" is that the defendant had knowledge that this cache, and other caches apparently, were active. The cache remnants and cache listings in his car refute the notion that the property was not being actively maintained. So he knew the caches belonged to someone, and he certainly knew they did not belong to him. He also knew they were placed there for others to come find them, which means he knew or should have known that those items were supposed to be left where they were found.

 

It is one thing to argue you can keep something you find in the woods if you hold a good faith belief that is has been abandoned, and another to claim you can take something when you know it is not abandoned. For that matter, since you know who the cache owner is, it seems like an open question whether you could claim ownership of it at all if you are the one removing it from where it was intentionally placed.

 

Lots of technical defenses are available to any prosecution that requires the intent of the defendant to be shown, so perhaps we can take that as a given. I just want to highlight that what the defendant knew about the item he was taking could be relevant.

 

The converse argument for litter is that it doesn't matter what the person who left it there thought about it if the law decides a cache is trash.

The point that a number of people have made earlier in the thread is that the items from his car may not be admissible in court for this trial. Therefore, they may not be able to prove that he had any prior knowledge of the game.

Share this post


Link to post

If it actually went to a hearing - wouldn't it be fun to have a courtroom full of local cachers, showing their support of geocaching.

 

This is what a few of us local cachers plan to do!! :(

 

Here's where you'd cross the line in my book. Either get to work or go geocaching. Professional activists need to lead more productive lives.

Share this post


Link to post

Does anyone know what the date was that he was caught on the "deer cam" muggling a cache? If it was last week it wouldn't prove much but if the "deer cam" pics were captured years ago it would show how long he's been stealing caches.

Share this post


Link to post

Does anyone know what the date was that he was caught on the "deer cam" muggling a cache? If it was last week it wouldn't prove much but if the "deer cam" pics were captured years ago it would show how long he's been stealing caches.

Nope, it would only prove that he was at that cache at some point. Even if the photo is date and time stamped to show when he was there it would not prove that he stole the cache. I can't imagine any court considering this as any sort of proof of anything except perhaps his presence.

Share this post


Link to post

The owner of the "deer cam" must know the timeframe in which the pictures were taken. We already know the day he was caught with the "Wishing Tree" cache. Add to this the timeframe in which the cache found in his glove box went missing and you may be able to show 3 different timeframes in which he was muggling caches. This would certainly show an ongoing pattern of behavior.

Share this post


Link to post

The owner of the "deer cam" must know the timeframe in which the pictures were taken. We already know the day he was caught with the "Wishing Tree" cache. Add to this the timeframe in which the cache found in his glove box went missing and you may be able to show 3 different timeframes in which he was muggling caches. This would certainly show an ongoing pattern of behavior.

Or at the very least it would show that he DID have knowledge of the game and how it is played.

 

It's a double edged sword at that point.

Share this post


Link to post

The point that a number of people have made earlier in the thread is that the items from his car may not be admissible in court for this trial. Therefore, they may not be able to prove that he had any prior knowledge of the game.

 

I think it's rather funny that everyone thinks that the DA is actually going to go to trial with this. I can't imagine the DA has any more pressing cases than this. Should I prosecute the crack dealer, the child molester or the geocache thief... Hmmm. They aren't going to be sending investigative teams out to research and gather evidence. Give me a break.

 

If he was caught with 2 caches, all it means is that he took 2 caches. It doesn't mean he is responsible for every missing cache in the state of New York.

 

The mob mentality is alive and well in the Groundspeak forums this week.

Share this post


Link to post

I think it's rather funny that everyone thinks that the DA is actually going to go to trial with this. I can't imagine the DA has any more pressing cases than this. Should I prosecute the crack dealer, the child molester or the geocache thief... Hmmm. They aren't going to be sending investigative teams out to research and gather evidence. Give me a break.

 

If he was caught with 2 caches, all it means is that he took 2 caches. It doesn't mean he is responsible for every missing cache in the state of New York.

 

The mob mentality is alive and well in the Groundspeak forums this week.

 

The best argument for the DA to prosecute this is because there are so many people who are angry and incensed.

 

I am not saying this is the way it should or will be but you really don't want a lot of people feeling like the culprit got off easy, no matter what the offense. That's exactly the type of thing that does cause a mob mentalty.

 

:(

Besides, this guy needs to get the message.

Never mess with a geocacher. We know the best places to hide a body. (being a canoeist, he should be able to calculate that one)

:P

Share this post


Link to post

The point that a number of people have made earlier in the thread is that the items from his car may not be admissible in court for this trial. Therefore, they may not be able to prove that he had any prior knowledge of the game.

 

I think it's rather funny that everyone thinks that the DA is actually going to go to trial with this. I can't imagine the DA has any more pressing cases than this. Should I prosecute the crack dealer, the child molester or the geocache thief... Hmmm. They aren't going to be sending investigative teams out to research and gather evidence. Give me a break.

 

If he was caught with 2 caches, all it means is that he took 2 caches. It doesn't mean he is responsible for every missing cache in the state of New York.

 

The mob mentality is alive and well in the Groundspeak forums this week.

I think that most people don't expect this case to go anywhere.

 

Most people in this thread are either simply using it as a mental exercise on the difficulties of prosecuting the case or ranting about the general issue.

Share this post


Link to post
I think it's rather funny that everyone thinks that the DA is actually going to go to trial with this. I can't imagine the DA has any more pressing cases than this. Should I prosecute the crack dealer, the child molester or the geocache thief... Hmmm. They aren't going to be sending investigative teams out to research and gather evidence. Give me a break.

 

If he was caught with 2 caches, all it means is that he took 2 caches. It doesn't mean he is responsible for every missing cache in the state of New York.

 

The mob mentality is alive and well in the Groundspeak forums this week.

The best argument for the DA to prosecute this is because there are so many people who are angry and incensed.
This is only true of the people to which the DA answers to. Of those people, very few care about stolen geocaches. Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

The best argument for the DA to prosecute this is because there are so many people who are angry and incensed.

 

Just because everyone is angry and incensed doesn't mean he is responsible for all the thefts. I'm glad we live in a country where the rule of law rises above emotion. If the guy is a celebrity, politician or a famous football player, that's a different story.

Share this post


Link to post
I think it's rather funny that everyone thinks that the DA is actually going to go to trial with this. I can't imagine the DA has any more pressing cases than this. Should I prosecute the crack dealer, the child molester or the geocache thief... Hmmm. They aren't going to be sending investigative teams out to research and gather evidence. Give me a break.

 

If he was caught with 2 caches, all it means is that he took 2 caches. It doesn't mean he is responsible for every missing cache in the state of New York.

 

The mob mentality is alive and well in the Groundspeak forums this week.

The best argument for the DA to prosecute this is because there are so many people who are angry and incensed.
First, this is only true of the people to which the DA answers to. Of those people, very few care about stolen geocaches.

Percentage of the population, yes. Actual numbers? I bet you could round up 100 people who the DA represents who do care.

Share this post


Link to post

The best argument for the DA to prosecute this is because there are so many people who are angry and incensed.

 

Just because everyone is angry and incensed doesn't mean he is responsible for all the thefts. I'm glad we live in a country where the rule of law rises above emotion. If the guy is a celebrity, politician or a famous football player, that's a different story.

 

Yes, you are correct.

I am from an old school mentality on this sort of thing.

If I am getting my tires slashed once a week and don't know who it is, then one day catch someone slashing my tires, that person is likely to suffer the full wrath that I have rationed for the person(s) who slash my tires. They might have only done it once but that's one time too many.

 

As I have said many times in my life. If people don't want to get punished severely, they shouldn't do bad things.

Share this post


Link to post

I think that most people don't expect this case to go anywhere.

 

Most people in this thread are either simply using it as a mental exercise on the difficulties of prosecuting the case or ranting about the general issue.

 

I agree... I think that this guy will plea this down to nothing and maybe have to pay a fine. He'd be in more trouble if he tried to fight it 'cause that would actually require a hearing where evidence could be heard.

 

It is an interesting exercise but I'm not gonna get my hopes up for anything more than public embarassment and ridicule.

Share this post


Link to post

As minor as it may appear to be to some, this is precedent-setting.

 

Is it, really?

 

I'm not a lawyer, but I know some are reading this thread. Does a decision rendered in a small-town municipal court carry any weight as a precedent outside of that small town?

Share this post


Link to post

As I have said many times in my life. If people don't want to get punished severely, they shouldn't do bad things.

 

For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Share this post


Link to post

The point that a number of people have made earlier in the thread is that the items from his car may not be admissible in court for this trial. Therefore, they may not be able to prove that he had any prior knowledge of the game.

 

I think it's rather funny that everyone thinks that the DA is actually going to go to trial with this. I can't imagine the DA has any more pressing cases than this. Should I prosecute the crack dealer, the child molester or the geocache thief... Hmmm. They aren't going to be sending investigative teams out to research and gather evidence. Give me a break.

 

If he was caught with 2 caches, all it means is that he took 2 caches. It doesn't mean he is responsible for every missing cache in the state of New York.

 

The mob mentality is alive and well in the Groundspeak forums this week.

 

Precisely the implication I made back on page #1 or #2 when I suggested that while it irritates us all, it is an incredible waste of tax payer dollars. I still await Bittsen to tell me how prosecuting this maggot is somehow going to be free to you and me. But I lose interest in topics like this when the mob gets going.

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 15

×
×
  • Create New...