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

Cache maggot arrested.

Recommended Posts

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

 

I find this fascinating from the perspective that if I do a search on Bittsen posts, he, however jokingly, suggests that the way to solve a geocaching problem is to "make the problem go away".. read.. go maggot.

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.

 

I find this fascinating from the perspective that if I do a search on Bittsen posts, he, however jokingly, suggests that the way to solve a geocaching problem is to "make the problem go away".. read.. go maggot.

I'm just about done with your constant pokes at me directly.

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.

 

That's the same thing bittsen said, but worded a bit differently. :(

 

What ever happened to turning the other cheek a few times first?

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.

 

That's pretty much my take on it. While I figure at most he'll be fined $100 and be on his way, it is interesting to think of the possible consequences on both sides of this situation.

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.

 

That's the same thing bittsen said, but worded a bit differently. :(

 

What ever happened to turning the other cheek a few times first?

ReadyOrNot suggested potential ramifications for the judger. Bittsen did not.

Share this post


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

 

 

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.

 

 

Well that certainly didnt sound judgemental... did it???

Share this post


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

 

 

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.

 

Well that certainly didnt sound judgemental... did it???

 

Huh? Noticing that this topic has turned into a mob without any evidence is a little bit different than directly calling for little kids to tap dance on this guys face. Also, I didn't say "Don't Judge", just that if you do judge someone else, are you prepared to have the spotlight turned back on you?

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!

 

They never were litter. Not by the letter of the law, not by the spirit and intent of the law. The argumetns otherwise were nothing but smoke with no grounds to stand on. (let alone common sense).

 

When it comes to abandoned property they can meet the letter of the law,but they don't meet the spirit and intent. Further it's the land manager who invokes the law. Not Joe Maggot. You don't get to walk into a campground and steal a tent. The forest service hower can invoke the abandoned property rules and law and deal with the tent. Even when it's 'abandoned' you can't steal it as now it's forest service property.

 

I'd love to see this go to trial and I'd love to see the issues laid to rest. I'd be happy to contribute to the prosecution. If the maggot was wise he'd cop a plea. Alas this maggot has merely proven they are smart. How wise has yet to be determined.

Edited by Renegade Knight

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!

 

Further it's the land manager who invokes the law. Not Joe Maggot. You don't get to walk into a campground and steal a tent. The forest service hower can invoke the abandoned property rules and law and deal with the tent. Even when it's 'abandoned' you can't steal it as now it's forest service property.

 

So, if permission were received from Walmart to clean up the lamp posts, the caches could be removed and thrown away? What about public areas? In theory, are not each of us owners of public areas or would permission need to be granted by the government?

Share this post


Link to post

...So, if permission were received from Walmart to clean up the lamp posts, the caches could be removed and thrown away? What about public areas? In theory, are not each of us owners of public areas or would permission need to be granted by the government?

 

I don't understand your question.

 

Most abandoned property laws that I've read apply to government agencies ( while they answer to us, they have the authority, not us) for their use in adminstering public lands. It's lets them clean up all the junk that gets left behind.

 

Some do apply to individuals. I have a Bronco on some land that some doof abandoned. The Bronco is from Utah. Idaho lets me file an abandoned vechicle claim and if I spend a lot of time and paperwork on it I can claim the broken bronco as my own. Then get rid of it. That it's a Utah bronco probably complicates it. My solution will be to haul this thing to the road and leave it where a government authority will deal with it.

 

If Wall Mart cleaned up their lot and tossed a cache as a result you have a couple of things brought up in the thread. If walmart reasonably though it was litter and tossed it. No harm no foul. If walmart knew it was a cache and posted a log for the owner to come get it or they would toss it in a week or two. No harm no fowl. If Walmart gave permission for it and threw it away anyway? Good question.

 

If Cache Maggot steals it. They aren't the owner, they aren't the land owner, and they know they are stealing it. This is what's cut and dry to me.

Share this post


Link to post

They never were litter. Not by the letter of the law, not by the spirit and intent of the law. The argumetns otherwise were nothing but smoke with no grounds to stand on. (let alone common sense).

That has never, ever been decided in any court other than the court of the geocaching pubilc's opinion and in my opinion, should be stated as opinion.

Share this post


Link to post

If Cache Maggot steals it. They aren't the owner, they aren't the land owner, and they know they are stealing it. This is what's cut and dry to me.

 

I had a fairly well hidden cache that was removed and thrown away by some citizens that were cleaning up the public park. I was contacted by one of the citizens that told me to not place caches in the park anymore and that the cache had been thrown away. This shows that they were quite aware that it was a geocache, because in order to contact me, they would have to go to the website and look up the cache.

 

Do I believe that they stole my cache? NO

Could they have handled it differently? YES

 

They were there to clean up what they perceived to be trash. To be honest, Geocaches are trash to someone who doesn't play the game. And they removed the trash in accordance with their purpose for being in the park. This was a citizen group and not affiliated with the government at any level.

Share this post


Link to post

If Cache Maggot steals it. They aren't the owner, they aren't the land owner, and they know they are stealing it. This is what's cut and dry to me.

 

I had a fairly well hidden cache that was removed and thrown away by some citizens that were cleaning up the public park. I was contacted by one of the citizens that told me to not place caches in the park anymore and that the cache had been thrown away. This shows that they were quite aware that it was a geocache, because in order to contact me, they would have to go to the website and look up the cache.

 

Do I believe that they stole my cache? NO

Could they have handled it differently? YES

 

They were there to clean up what they perceived to be trash. To be honest, Geocaches are trash to someone who doesn't play the game. And they removed the trash in accordance with their purpose for being in the park. This was a citizen group and not affiliated with the government at any level.

 

And trees are just fuel or building materials to someone who doesn't enjoy nature. That doesn't give anyone the right to cut down the trees though, does it?

Share this post


Link to post

If Cache Maggot steals it. They aren't the owner, they aren't the land owner, and they know they are stealing it. This is what's cut and dry to me.

 

I had a fairly well hidden cache that was removed and thrown away by some citizens that were cleaning up the public park. I was contacted by one of the citizens that told me to not place caches in the park anymore and that the cache had been thrown away. This shows that they were quite aware that it was a geocache, because in order to contact me, they would have to go to the website and look up the cache.

 

Do I believe that they stole my cache? NO

Could they have handled it differently? YES

 

They were there to clean up what they perceived to be trash. To be honest, Geocaches are trash to someone who doesn't play the game. And they removed the trash in accordance with their purpose for being in the park. This was a citizen group and not affiliated with the government at any level.

 

And trees are just fuel or building materials to someone who doesn't enjoy nature. That doesn't give anyone the right to cut down the trees though, does it?

 

On my own property or on public property? If it's on my own property, I can do whatever I want to the tree, including but not limited to poking it with a stick and laughing at it. Whoever owns the property would also own the tree. In the case of a geocache, it's placed on someone else's property (with or without permission).. The only case where I believe it's cut and dry is when I place MY geocache in MY front yard.

Share this post


Link to post
Should I prosecute the crack dealer, the child molester or the geocache thief?

That's a matter of semantics. What do you consider to be a prosecution? If the only thing you consider to be a "prosecution" is a jury trial, with a Judge's gavel weighing in after a proclamation, then the odds are you wouldn't prosecute any of these. The crack dealer is gonna take the first plea bargain you put on the table. The child molester is going to be dismissed during a suppression hearing, and the thief is likely to follow the drug dealer, taking a plea bargain. I should stress that these thoughts are based strictly on percentages, not how I feel things should be.

 

Your job as a prosecutor is to resolve all three cases. How you get to that point follows a fairly standard flowchart:

 

Is there probable cause for the arrest?

If "Yes", continue.

If "No", dismiss the case.

In this case, there was probable cause, as the theft was witnessed.

 

Is there evidence to support the arrest?

If "Yes", continue.

In "No", toss the defendant a plea bargain bone.

If they accept the plea, your job is done, and the case is resolved.

If they opt to take it to trial, dismiss the case as unwinnable.

In this case, there was physical evidence that supported the arrest.

 

Do you have a responsive victim, willing to spend time in court?

If "Yes", continue.

If "No", toss the defendant a plea bargain bone.

If they accept the plea, your job is done, and the case is resolved.

If they opt to take it to trial, dismiss the case as unwinnable.

 

Did the case survive suppression hearings?

If "Yes", continue.

If "No", you're done.

 

At that point, you, as a prosecutor, have a case that, in a perfect world, is quite winnable. You've got a witness to the crime, evidence to support it and a victim who is willing to be at trial. That gives you a pretty strong bargaining position, as any defense attorney knows. However, you also know that your trial time is still very limited, so you want to maximize your effectiveness. In the interest of time management, you'll work with the defense, coming up with an acceptable plea bargain.

 

If that fails, you'll take it to trial, because that's your job.

 

Does a decision rendered in a small-town municipal court carry any weight as a precedent outside of that small town?

Absolutely. Remember that a precedent setting case, brought up in a future case, does not require a Judge to act in a designated manner. It only suggests what has been done before, and what has survived the legal process. A Judge wants to resolve the case. If the prosecutor presents prior case law, even from another court, and the defense can't present a counter to that, the Judge will often rule in favor of the precedent.

 

To be honest, Geocaches are trash to someone who doesn't play the game.

To be honest, geocaches are quirky game pieces to many folks who don't play the game. For instance, my mom, my sister, my oldest brother, my stepfather, my immediate supervisor, several of my coworkers and a couple of my kids don't play this game. Of that group, none of them believe that geocaches are trash. It is beyond me how anyone with a registrable IQ could make the logic leap that something put in a specific place, for a specific purpose, that is still being utilized for that purpose, could even remotely be considered as litter. How you can make such a broad, sweeping claim regarding every, (or even most), muggles, boggles my mind.

 

An unlabeled film can? Maybe. A properly labeled Lock & Lock? Sorry. I don't buy the theory that a high percentage of muggles would evaluate that object and come to the conclusion that it was trash.

Share this post


Link to post

If Cache Maggot steals it. They aren't the owner, they aren't the land owner, and they know they are stealing it. This is what's cut and dry to me.

 

I had a fairly well hidden cache that was removed and thrown away by some citizens that were cleaning up the public park. I was contacted by one of the citizens that told me to not place caches in the park anymore and that the cache had been thrown away. This shows that they were quite aware that it was a geocache, because in order to contact me, they would have to go to the website and look up the cache.

 

Do I believe that they stole my cache? NO

Could they have handled it differently? YES

 

They were there to clean up what they perceived to be trash. To be honest, Geocaches are trash to someone who doesn't play the game. And they removed the trash in accordance with their purpose for being in the park. This was a citizen group and not affiliated with the government at any level.

 

And trees are just fuel or building materials to someone who doesn't enjoy nature. That doesn't give anyone the right to cut down the trees though, does it?

 

He's speaking to the question of theft and intent. Since the group was out cleaning the park, they perceived the cache as trash and disposed of it accordingly even though they knew it was a geocache. Although it could be argued whether or not they were just in doing so, you'd be hard pressed to prove theft in that case.

Share this post


Link to post

It is beyond me how anyone with a registrable IQ could make the logic leap that something put in a specific place, for a specific purpose, that is still being utilized for that purpose, could even remotely be considered as litter. How you can make such a broad, sweeping claim regarding every, (or even most), muggles, boggles my mind.

 

The thing is, I've been surprised by a judge's decision more than a few times. Things that make complete sense to John Q. Public do not always turn out mean the same thing in court.

 

The question of what qualifies as sex comes to mind. To most people, certain acts are instinctively known to be sex acts. But suddenly a lawyer starts playing word games and black and white turns to gray.

 

That's why I would be apprehensive about involving the police in this matter. Sometimes you can come out losing more than you thought you might gain.

 

It's more of a curiosity than anything. But I am actually hoping this case sees the inside of a courtroom, as doubtful as that aspect may be, just so we can finally get an answer to several of the recurring topics around here.

Share this post


Link to post

If it's on my own property, I can do whatever I want to the tree, including but not limited to poking it with a stick and laughing at it.

 

You obviously don't live in my town and have to deal with the tree committee. But that is way off topic.

Share this post


Link to post

The thing is, I've been surprised by a judge's decision more than a few times. Things that make complete sense to John Q. Public do not always turn out mean the same thing in court.

 

Same here.

I was in the courtroom while a woman was trying to get a restraining order. Her ex boyfriend kept stalking her including entering her house when she wasn't home and waiting for her to come home. The judge said no because she never specifically said she felt her life was in future danger in the paperwork. She said it many times in the courtroom but forgot to say it in the complaint. She had listed a half dozen time where she was in danger previously.

 

It was surprising to see the reaction of everyone in the courtroom at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Does a decision rendered in a small-town municipal court carry any weight as a precedent outside of that small town?

Absolutely. Remember that a precedent setting case, brought up in a future case, does not require a Judge to act in a designated manner. It only suggests what has been done before, and what has survived the legal process. A Judge wants to resolve the case. If the prosecutor presents prior case law, even from another court, and the defense can't present a counter to that, the Judge will often rule in favor of the precedent.

 

Very few things in the law are absolute. It depends on how far a case got and the particular facts and law at issue. A ruling by the lower court would not be published. It may not even be in writing. It would not constitute persuasive authority. If it was appealed and a decision was unpublished, it still would not be used as authority. If it was published, you could cite to it. Lower courts within the jurisdiction would have to follow it (in theory) unless it could be distinguished on the facts or another point of law was raised. Other courts could consider it influential. Assuming, of course, that an even higher court did not depublish the decision.

 

To make it even more confusing, the Supreme Court in New York is not the supreme court. It is the trial court of general jurisdiction (what I would call the Superior Court). The Appellate division of the Supreme Court is the next highest level. The Court of Appeals is what most of the rest of us call the Supreme Court. So it depends on what court makes the ruling and whether that decision is a published case intended to set legal precedent.

 

Your job as a prosecutor is to resolve all three cases. How you get to that point follows a fairly standard flowchart:

 

Although sometimes things do not flow that easily. Assuming you could survive a suppression hearing, other pretrial motions presumably would be made to dismiss. A suppression motion in this case might be relevant to the charge involving the search of the car, but not to the petty larceny. That does not mean that both charges are not vulnerable on another basis. Or two.

 

The child molester is going to be dismissed during a suppression hearing.

 

Your state is different than mine, but that probably best saved for the off topic forum.

Edited by Erickson

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.

As I've mentioned before, I don't think that there's a snowball's chance of this going anywhere, but it's interesting to ponder.

 

And mob mentality? We've already got a lawyer on board who specializes in the death penalty... we are SO ready to try this case if the court won't! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
duplicate
Considering that you're a lawyer, I would have expected a triplicate, at least.

 

Triplicate is saved for my town's tree committee. Off topic again but it's near and dear to my heart. Or home.

Share this post


Link to post

Wow - someone has a whole lot of free time on his hands - aside from the thief. Stop all this back and forth and get outside and geocache. I will be posting what happened from my point of view, seeing as I was actually there, very soon. Until then, I suggest the rest of you stop this highschool bulls***, 11 pages later, and move on.

Share this post


Link to post

Wow - someone has a whole lot of free time on his hands - aside from the thief. Stop all this back and forth and get outside and geocache. I will be posting what happened from my point of view, seeing as I was actually there, very soon. Until then, I suggest the rest of you stop this highschool bulls***, 11 pages later, and move on.

 

No need to be so rude. But as long as you are going to be, it would have been more useful about 7 or 8 pages ago. The thread was already dying down by page 11.

 

I do look forward to an update and detailed report. :blink:

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.

 

That's the same thing bittsen said, but worded a bit differently. :blink:

 

What ever happened to turning the other cheek a few times first?

ReadyOrNot suggested potential ramifications for the judger. Bittsen did not.

 

Yes he did, "Punished severely" is a potential ramification for the theoretical person who is judging bittsen and repeatedly doing vandalism. :D

 

Punishment is only good as a deterent to prevent others from doing crimes. If it is used as a means to make a victim feel better, it usually carries a negative collateral effect. No two actions are ever exactly alike, as it is impossible to "get even" without creating more unneccessary negativity.

 

I have no problem with letting the maggot go if he stops his ways. Unfortunately it may be used as a precident to inspire other Paul Repaks. The fact that he devoted so much time and energy over many years to repeatedly cause distress to others signifies a serious mental defect, and it's hard to believe that he may completely stop "cold turkey". I suspect that there may be another issue going on which caused him to take it out on cachers, or perhaps he was a cacher at one time until someone (or several people) pissed him off enough to label all cachers as bad (perhaps in the forums? B) ). Whatever the case, he is unlikely to get prosecuted for all that he did.

 

Caches are not abandoned if they are listed and the owner is actively maintaining them. If someone found one accidentally without any info on them it could be argued, but if someone is using the website to intentionally find them, he is stealing. If I park my car in the woods on public property is is not abandonment unless I demonstrate a lack of intent to pick it up. Many years ago I recieved a ticket for "abandoning a vehicle on a public highway" because I had left my '75 Nova there for more than a few days. If someone else had picked it up, they would have been charged with stealing.

 

I strongly suspect there is something else going on in his life, and the cache maggotry is only the tip of the iceberg..

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?

 

I was going for sneaky tiptoeing (a la ninja) but I can see how you could get dancing :blink: Buttercup is the quick tempered Powerpuff Girl who thinks violence is always the best solution. See her vicious glare? :D

 

Looking forward to hearing how this plays out.

Share this post


Link to post

Anyone know what kind of car this is?

 

97ffd1d5-31d8-44f5-9290-45160b40571a.jpg

 

I think that's a Subaru emblem on the grill.

Share this post


Link to post

"Paul

 

I think that would be a very good gesture. I am not going to put a number on anything, because I can only speak for my self and bluegirl as to the damage you have caused in our area. I wouldn't even know where to begin to come up with a count or total value. Again, I think you should just do what you feel is right.

 

On the 27th of this month, 80-100 geocachers ( a good number of them being those of whom you affected) will meet here in Long Lake for our Annual mid-winter Event. Maybe use this as your chance. Again, I'm not going to tell you what to do.

 

I do want to ask you "why" and how you might suggest we can prevent anyone else from going down your path? What was it about our sport that you did not like? Knowing this may help us to better educate and/ or help modify our ways.

 

Shane"

 

 

"Shane,

 

While taking part in your meeting sounds interesting, you know that I while I am charged by the legal system that I am ill advised to speak on anything relating to the situation or my alleged participation in any of it. For the future I'd be happy to research what the problems are and converse about the evolution and future of outdoor activities of all kinds, and to learn about this geocaching community to educate myself and others. I have already learned far more than I knew previously, particularly about how the sport works and expectations. But I am also extremely embarrassed within my family, my friends, my coworkers and my community in the way events the other evening unrolled and were reported. I also cannot comment further on those effects at this time.

 

But until I hear words to the effect "charges are dropped, case dismissed" this is a nightmare and it is difficult to be positive until that happens, and even with that outcome considerable lasting impressionable damage has been done to me and my family already. As I learn more about the sport however, I'll bet that there are ways to contribute in the future in more ways than one. Education all the way around is always important, but If you had a benefactor willing to donate $500 or more to the sport, perhaps that may help the cause. As with any outdoor activity that promotes respectfulness from education, I am willing to work with you. Let me know what you and the others think.

 

-Paul"

 

I've been following this with some interest. I see that you asked "why" and that he did not response. This its telling. Would you mind asking him again?

 

It's interesting that he says "I have already learned far more than I knew previously, particularly about how the sport works and expectations." What did he think the expectations were before he was caught? How did he think the sport worked before he was caught? If he thought that it was legit to take the caches (I'm only speculating as to how he thought the sport worked), why did he run? Why did he subscribe as a Premium Member?

 

I can offer all kinds of speculations about this, but if you've got an open line to the horse, I'd like to hear it from the horse's mouth, as it were.

 

It does sound like he's going to take the position that "while I'm involved in the legal system, I won't talk about it at all", which is a shame, but it might be worthwhile to say something along the lines of "you've indicated that you're willing to work with me about ways to promote outdoor education. In order to facilitate that, I need to understand your position regarding geocaching, which means I need to understand exactly what you did, and why, so that from there we can work on developing ideas for education. For example, is there something about Groundspeak's geocaching.com website that made it difficult for you to understand how geocaching works and what is expected from geocachers? What was your understanding/expectation of the sport before this incident brought you further personal education? Knowing this might make it possible for me to make meaningful and useful suggestions directly to Groundspeak."

 

(Sorry, that's awfully wordy. Like Mr. Repak, I tend to use verbosity as a shield in confrontational situations.)

 

Edited to add: thinking further, I'd also caution you. Make sure that this person doesn't end up using you in an attempt to prove to the court (should this go to court) that he is sincerely contrite and working hard to make amends. Unless, of course, he is. But his writing, so far, just looks like obfuscation to me at this point. He's willing to say that he's eager to work with you, but so far has found excuses to avoid actually doing anything. Tho that might be an overreacting read on my part. -- J

Edited by Jackalgirl

Share this post


Link to post
As I've mentioned before, I don't think that there's a snowball's chance of this going anywhere, but it's interesting to ponder.

Agreed. What makes it interesting, for me, is not where it's likely to end, but how it will get there. I was pondering this case today, and it got me to thinking.

[opinion utterly unsupported by evidence] This guy absolutely cannot afford a finding of guilt in this case, even if the charges are significantly reduced as a plea bargain. So long as the case remains up in the air, his security clearance, and subsequently his continued employment, is probably safe. Even a "No Contest" plea could hurt this guy. As such, it's in his best interest to fight this tooth & nail, tossing gobs of cash at his attorney. Paying for an attorney will hurt this guy financially much more than any court imposed fine. [/opinion utterly unsupported by evidence]

Share this post


Link to post
As I've mentioned before, I don't think that there's a snowball's chance of this going anywhere, but it's interesting to ponder.

Agreed. What makes it interesting, for me, is not where it's likely to end, but how it will get there. I was pondering this case today, and it got me to thinking.

[opinion utterly unsupported by evidence] This guy absolutely cannot afford a finding of guilt in this case, even if the charges are significantly reduced as a plea bargain. So long as the case remains up in the air, his security clearance, and subsequently his continued employment, is probably safe. Even a "No Contest" plea could hurt this guy. As such, it's in his best interest to fight this tooth & nail, tossing gobs of cash at his attorney. Paying for an attorney will hurt this guy financially much more than any court imposed fine. [/opinion utterly unsupported by evidence]

 

In Oregon it could turn out to be "Dismissed without prejudice" which is a fancy way of saying "We will let you go this time but if you do it again, we will nail you twice".

Share this post


Link to post

Wow - someone has a whole lot of free time on his hands - aside from the thief. Stop all this back and forth and get outside and geocache. I will be posting what happened from my point of view, seeing as I was actually there, very soon. Until then, I suggest the rest of you stop this highschool bulls***, 11 pages later, and move on.

 

No need to be so rude. But as long as you are going to be, it would have been more useful about 7 or 8 pages ago. The thread was already dying down by page 11.

 

I do look forward to an update and detailed report. :blink:

 

I was unaware of this thread till it was already ten pages.

Share this post


Link to post

Anyone know what kind of car this is?

http://img.geocaching.com/cache/log/97ffd1...5160b40571a.jpg

I think that's a Subaru emblem on the grill.

Huh?
My best guess was that he was inquiring about flask's neighbor's cat in the only way he knew.

 

That's a relief, cause it looked like maybe it was a picture of the accused's vehicle. Glad to hear it's not. The whole "internet justice" angle of this thread is embarassing. What are we, hot-headed 19-year-olds looking to smash mailboxes and pee in gas tanks?

Share this post


Link to post

That's a relief, cause it looked like maybe it was a picture of the accused's vehicle. Glad to hear it's not. The whole "internet justice" angle of this thread is embarassing. What are we, hot-headed 19-year-olds looking to smash mailboxes and pee in gas tanks?

Personally I am a 56-year-old fairly level-headed codger who believes that actions have consequences.

 

If you don't want to be publicly humiliated on the internet don't steal caches. Simple, really.

 

As to the calls for "internet justice" I haven't seen one here yet that was a call to action, but rather people stating their beliefs on the topic, which is what discussion forums do.

 

Unfortunately there is always the chance that some nutjob will take 'justice' into his own hands and do something weird, but again that is a chance you take when you become known as a cache maggot.

 

That said, if it IS his car is posting pictures of it here going too far? Yes, I think so. This whole situation should have been discussed in the abstract without identifying him, his job, his address, car and so on.

 

On the other hand, I have to wonder... should the dysfunctional be identified? I don't know, but maybe yes.

 

At least here in the US it has been decided that sexual predators should be identified and a public notification and database be published giving their history and current whereabouts. Why then is it wrong to do the same of a convicted (this guy isn't) cache thief? We know for a fact that recidivism rates are very high... convicted criminals are very likely to commit further crimes, that's simple statistics. Do we do anyone any favor by keeping criminal's ID to ourselves? No, that's a large part of why criminal proceedings are public record.

 

Last week a local college professor failed to make tenure. She pulled a handgun and shot six of her peers in a faculty meeting, killing three. She was still trying to shoot more when her gun jammed. Then it was revealed that she had many years ago shot and killed her brother, a killing which was ruled accidental at the time (though she 'accidentally' fired three times... with a shotgun!) and that not many years ago she and her husband were convicted of sending a mail bomb to a colleague whom she had an argument with. She didn't get tenure because her students had submitted a petition asking for her ouster because she was such a terribly incompetent teacher. And the University KNEW this when they hired her. And kept it quiet. And yet they acted surprised and amazed when she did it again. Said what a nice woman she was, and that they couldn't believe that she would do a thing like this.

 

So, when someone displays dysfunctional and anti-social behavior should they be identified and thus monitored for further criminal activity? Should the caching community know (if he is convicted) that this man with a history of stealing caches lives in their community?

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler

Share this post


Link to post

That's a relief, cause it looked like maybe it was a picture of the accused's vehicle. Glad to hear it's not. The whole "internet justice" angle of this thread is embarassing. What are we, hot-headed 19-year-olds looking to smash mailboxes and pee in gas tanks?

Personally I am a 56-year-old fairly level-headed codger who believes that actions have consequences.

 

If you don't want to be publicly humiliated on the internet don't steal caches. Simple, really.

 

As to the calls for "internet justice" I haven't seen one here yet that was a call to action, but rather people stating their beliefs on the topic, which is what discussion forums do.

Agreed. Which is why we have a legal system. I do agree with the Mischievous Castle that there has been a vigilante tone to much of this thread though (interspersed with plenty of intellegent, level-headed thinking), and I too have found that part of it embarrassing both personally, and to the activity of geocaching. Those parts of this thread, while they do justly reflect our outrage, do not reflect the level of maturity that I wish to be identified with.

Share this post


Link to post

reflect the level of maturity that I wish to be identified with.

So says the dog wearing reading glasses
You... you... you sock puppet, you! Edited by knowschad

Share this post


Link to post

reflect the level of maturity that I wish to be identified with.

So says the dog wearing reading glasses
You... you... you sock puppet, you!

 

Be quiet, both of you! The Blue Bow is a Bow of peace! :blink:

 

(either I need more meds, or fewer. Not sure which.)

Share this post


Link to post

Wow - someone has a whole lot of free time on his hands - aside from the thief. Stop all this back and forth and get outside and geocache. I will be posting what happened from my point of view, seeing as I was actually there, very soon. Until then, I suggest the rest of you stop this highschool bulls***, 11 pages later, and move on.

 

No need to be so rude. But as long as you are going to be, it would have been more useful about 7 or 8 pages ago. The thread was already dying down by page 11.

 

I do look forward to an update and detailed report. :blink:

 

I was unaware of this thread till it was already ten pages.

 

You obviously need to spend more time in the forums.

Edited by briansnat

Share this post


Link to post

That's a relief, cause it looked like maybe it was a picture of the accused's vehicle. Glad to hear it's not. The whole "internet justice" angle of this thread is embarrassing. What are we, hot-headed 19-year-olds looking to smash mailboxes and pee in gas tanks?

Personally I am a 56-year-old fairly level-headed codger who believes that actions have consequences.

 

If you don't want to be publicly humiliated on the internet don't steal caches. Simple, really.

 

As to the calls for "internet justice" I haven't seen one here yet that was a call to action, but rather people stating their beliefs on the topic, which is what discussion forums do.

 

Public (internet) humiliation is one thing, but the wink, wink, nod, nod "oh look here's his address" posts are another. Not one subtle call to arms? Not one?

 

Unfortunately there is always the chance that some nutjob will take 'justice' into his own hands and do something weird, but again that is a chance you take when you become known as a cache maggot.

 

Yes, because that would (wink wink) be a bad thing (nod nod).

 

That said, if it IS his car is posting pictures of it here going too far? Yes, I think so. This whole situation should have been discussed in the abstract without identifying him, his job, his address, car and so on.

 

Winkity noddoty nod-nod winker.

 

I don't doubt your ability to discuss it as an abstract but completely disagree that it could be discussed on this forum as an abstract.

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.

 

That's the same thing bittsen said, but worded a bit differently. :blink:

 

What ever happened to turning the other cheek a few times first?

ReadyOrNot suggested potential ramifications for the judger. Bittsen did not.

 

Yes he did, "Punished severely" is a potential ramification for the theoretical person who is judging bittsen and repeatedly doing vandalism. :D

 

Punishment is only good as a deterent to prevent others from doing crimes. If it is used as a means to make a victim feel better, it usually carries a negative collateral effect. No two actions are ever exactly alike, as it is impossible to "get even" without creating more unneccessary negativity.

 

I have no problem with letting the maggot go if he stops his ways. Unfortunately it may be used as a precident to inspire other Paul Repaks. The fact that he devoted so much time and energy over many years to repeatedly cause distress to others signifies a serious mental defect, and it's hard to believe that he may completely stop "cold turkey". I suspect that there may be another issue going on which caused him to take it out on cachers, or perhaps he was a cacher at one time until someone (or several people) pissed him off enough to label all cachers as bad (perhaps in the forums? B) ). Whatever the case, he is unlikely to get prosecuted for all that he did.

 

Caches are not abandoned if they are listed and the owner is actively maintaining them. If someone found one accidentally without any info on them it could be argued, but if someone is using the website to intentionally find them, he is stealing. If I park my car in the woods on public property is is not abandonment unless I demonstrate a lack of intent to pick it up. Many years ago I recieved a ticket for "abandoning a vehicle on a public highway" because I had left my '75 Nova there for more than a few days. If someone else had picked it up, they would have been charged with stealing.

 

I strongly suspect there is something else going on in his life, and the cache maggotry is only the tip of the iceberg..

Why do you have to twist my post to the breaking point? Suffice it that my posts mean what they say and nothing more. You made your point many pages ago. It is not necessary for you to distort the meaning of my posts to make your point.

Share this post


Link to post

Be quiet, both of you! The Blue Bow is a Bow of peace! :blink:

I bow to the bow.

I think that proper forumetiquette also requires a do-si-do when you bow to the bow.

Share this post


Link to post

well, if his personal information is publicly available in relation to this case, there's no reason it shouldn't be part of this discussion, which is largely about the case.

 

it would not be good to use the information past identification, because then it becomes a case of us stalking or threatening him.

 

hooting and having our wooty-woos that the maggot has been identified and caught is one thing, but going after him with punishments of our own is quite another.

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...