Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
angelsfan33

Cops called on on me while hiking with daughter!

Recommended Posts

Oh, and also, please tell her that her idiocy has caused no small amount of discomfort to an innocent family.

GeoGeeBee, please be nice. She was only trying to help a child.

 

I'd call that a fail.

Now my daughter has said she is scared the cops are going to arrest us for geocaching together!

Share this post


Link to post

I was at the Pinecrest Park today with my dog. I happen to know the person who called the sheriff because her dog plays with mine.

 

 

Oh, and also, please tell her that her idiocy has caused no small amount of discomfort to an innocent family.

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post

She said if you had gone to the playground first she wouldn't have thought twice about it but your actions were atypical for a parent coming to a park with their daughter.

Because child molesters don't take kids to playground? Maybe if she had bothered to speak to him she could have put her mind at ease. Instead she let him take a little girl down the road to rape her. (if she thought he was up to no good)

 

P.S. you must look young because she thought you were in your early 20's!!

Why does the call record say male in his 30's?

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Angelsfan,

I was out trolling forums today, and decided to pick you as my latest attempt at getting attention.

 

Fixed it...

Share this post


Link to post
Hi Angelsfan,

I was out trolling forums today, and decided to pick you as my latest attempt at getting attention.

Fixed it...
Holy Schmoley! :huh:

 

If these two (Angelsfan33 and girlscoutcookies) live in the same area, as GSC seems to be saying, why haven't they found any of the same caches as far as I can see? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Hi Angelsfan,

I was out trolling forums today, and decided to pick you as my latest attempt at getting attention.

Fixed it...
Holy Schmoley! :huh:

 

If these two (Angelsfan33 and girlscoutcookies) live in the same area, as GSC seems to be saying, why haven't they found any of the same caches as far as I can see? :unsure:

 

Nah, I'm from not too far from where they are, and they're pretty close together judging by the caches that they've found. Not the same caches, but in relatively close proximity to each other in area.

Share this post


Link to post
Hi Angelsfan,

I was out trolling forums today, and decided to pick you as my latest attempt at getting attention.

Fixed it...
Holy Schmoley! :huh:

 

If these two (Angelsfan33 and girlscoutcookies) live in the same area, as GSC seems to be saying, why haven't they found any of the same caches as far as I can see? :unsure:

 

Nah, I'm from not too far from where they are, and they're pretty close together judging by the caches that they've found. Not the same caches, but in relatively close proximity to each other in area.

 

Well, one hasn't found a cache in over a year, and the other started caching later than that and has found twice as many caches. I think that one would have to have both of their "My Founds" query to make a serious comparison.

 

In the end, who cares? Was John calling shenanigans?

Share this post


Link to post

My first encounter with the police while caching was along the same lines as this. I was on a paved trail with my twelve year old son. There was no one there but us. The cache was about 150 feet from the trail into the woods. We found the cache and when we came out of the woods two officers were standing there. My first thought was that we were on private property in the woods. They asked what we were doing and I tried to explain geocaching. This was five years ago so not as many police had heard of it. Then one of them said he had heard something about it. I asked why they were there. They said they had seen an older guy and a kid walking into the woods. I was 48 at the time. My first thought was revulsion. It made me feel like scum. I explained that it was my son I was with. They believed it because we do look alike. Then I thanked them for being vigilant because if someone was walking into the woods with my son I would be glad they saw it. It's too bad people have to think like this but the pervs are out there. As scummy as it makes you feel be glad someone cares enough to have it checked out.

Share this post


Link to post

The boy was a saint in regards to the toddler situation, which is that he did nothing wrong except try to help the child but was charged anyway.

this is what happens when you confuse a news story with reality. The fidiots in the media decided to portray that predator as a martyr, and ignored relevant facts brought out in the investigation. The story snowballed, until the State Attorney decided they would be unable to get a conviction, opting not to waste tax dollars on a trial. Having seen the video that the media decided not to release, and having talked to one of the deputies on scene, I can tell you his actions were, in no way, innocent. Knowing what kind of predator he is, I knew it was just a matter of time before he struck again. Thankfully, the media is not trying to reinvent history... this time. Hopefully their decision will keep the arm chair quarterbacks at bay... this time.

Share this post


Link to post

That sucks that you want through that.

On the other hand, you and she should feel safer knowing that folks in your area are looking out for the safety of little kids, even if they get it wrong sometimes.

 

Optimist!

 

I kind of agree with you....

 

However, I have a 3yo son who loves to geocache. He talks about it alllll the time.

 

The times I have taken him into the woods, I have always made sure his mama was there because I would expect just such a situation to happen to me and I have NEVER had the police contact me while I was actually caching. Been looked at, but they always pass me bye.

 

I met a local cacher at an event, on Monday, who I did not know was an HPD officer. The subject of police interaction came up and I pointed out that in over 8 years, I had never had a LE encounter directly related to my geocaching activities. I pointed out that I work closely with police and hold several LE Certifications as well as being a Verbal Judo Instructor and that maybe because the LE mystique was not there for me, maybe I emitted a "Good Guy" signal.... He and his HFD cachin' buddy both said yes, that's the vibe they would get seeing me on the street and then he introduced himself as an HPD officer.

 

That said, I still expect to have a LE encounter if I take my son into the woods alone. It's just different when little people are in the mix. It's unfortunate that our society is so suspicious, but if someone ELSE was leading my son into the woods, I would HOPE someone would call the cops.

 

Now, NO ONE is talking to my son in an official capacity away from me and my wife. That just wouldn't be allowed happen. Careers would end over it if it happened to me against my wishes. I know people. :anibad:

Share this post


Link to post

 

What is wrong with a father walking with his daughter?

 

Absolutely nothing. This was a terrible, terrible situation for that father and daughter. I am just sick hearing about it.

 

When my daughter first started Girl Scouts about 10 years ago, her troop leader talked to her supervisor since she was very suspicious that my daughter's Dad took her to the meetings. She told the supervisor "Dads just don't do that kind of stuff."

 

Are you KIDDING me? They do in OUR family. My husband does lots of fun stuff with our kids! I know that we are fortunate that he is able to take the time to do that. I was appalled that someone would think it odd that a dad took his daughter to a Brownie meeting! Fortunately, the supervisor told her the same thing, and let me know about it later.

 

It may be hard for some people to understand, but there ARE dads who spend quality time with their kids! He has much more patience than I do, and he was the one who took the kids to the museums, amusement parks, playing at the park, bike rides, and I can't imagine someone "questioning him" because he was out spending time with his child.

Share this post


Link to post
Was John calling shenanigans?
Why, yes. Yes, I was.

 

She she says takes her dog to a park with caches that have been around since before she stopped caching. You're telling me she didn't hunt them?

 

Just in case anyone missed it: I'm calling shenanigans.

Edited by Too Tall John

Share this post


Link to post
Was John calling shenanigans?
Why, yes. Yes, I was.

 

She she says takes her dog to a park with caches that have been around since before she stopped caching. You're telling me she didn't hunt them?

 

Just in case anyone missed it: I'm calling shenanigans.

So, you think that girlscoutcookies created that account in 2006, just in case something like this happened? I don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post

The boy was a saint in regards to the toddler situation, which is that he did nothing wrong except try to help the child but was charged anyway.

this is what happens when you confuse a news story with reality. The fidiots in the media decided to portray that predator as a martyr, and ignored relevant facts brought out in the investigation. The story snowballed, until the State Attorney decided they would be unable to get a conviction, opting not to waste tax dollars on a trial. Having seen the video that the media decided not to release, and having talked to one of the deputies on scene, I can tell you his actions were, in no way, innocent. Knowing what kind of predator he is, I knew it was just a matter of time before he struck again. Thankfully, the media is not trying to reinvent history... this time. Hopefully their decision will keep the arm chair quarterbacks at bay... this time.

 

If it was a simple as you say it is (video) then why did the mother not continue with the charges?

Share this post


Link to post

New person here. 2nd day of geocaching and 1st day on the forum. The A & J part of my log-on are my kids' initials. I'm introducing them to this wonderful sport/pastime because of the interaction with each other that is a part of this adventure. I expect someone will call the cops on me at some point. I carry my kids school id cards and those little id/finger print cards with me. I also have 3 years worth of school pictures crammed into my wallet.

 

Whenever someone spends too long looking at me when I'm out with my kids, I confront them. How do I know, that they aren't the ones with 'issues'? It's worked so far.

 

I will say, I'd never let someone talk to my kids alone. As for kids always telling the truth to adults? You ever have a kid? My son (ten) will not admit a mistake no matter what. To ANYONE but his mom. My daugther (8 going on 15) has been known to lie to my face and I fall for it 7 out of ten times.

 

I understand that people are only doing what THEY think is right but sometimes, people need to mind their own business.

 

The media makes mountains out of mole hills. They have to. It's called job security.

Share this post


Link to post

The boy was a saint in regards to the toddler situation, which is that he did nothing wrong except try to help the child but was charged anyway.

this is what happens when you confuse a news story with reality. The fidiots in the media decided to portray that predator as a martyr, and ignored relevant facts brought out in the investigation. The story snowballed, until the State Attorney decided they would be unable to get a conviction, opting not to waste tax dollars on a trial. Having seen the video that the media decided not to release, and having talked to one of the deputies on scene, I can tell you his actions were, in no way, innocent. Knowing what kind of predator he is, I knew it was just a matter of time before he struck again. Thankfully, the media is not trying to reinvent history... this time. Hopefully their decision will keep the arm chair quarterbacks at bay... this time.

 

If it was a simple as you say it is (video) then why did the mother not continue with the charges?

See the part that I bolded. I know nothing about the case y'all are discussing, but I do know that victims mothers don't get to decide if criminals are prosecuted or not.

Share this post


Link to post

The boy was a saint in regards to the toddler situation, which is that he did nothing wrong except try to help the child but was charged anyway.

this is what happens when you confuse a news story with reality. The fidiots in the media decided to portray that predator as a martyr, and ignored relevant facts brought out in the investigation. The story snowballed, until the State Attorney decided they would be unable to get a conviction, opting not to waste tax dollars on a trial. Having seen the video that the media decided not to release, and having talked to one of the deputies on scene, I can tell you his actions were, in no way, innocent. Knowing what kind of predator he is, I knew it was just a matter of time before he struck again. Thankfully, the media is not trying to reinvent history... this time. Hopefully their decision will keep the arm chair quarterbacks at bay... this time.

 

If it was a simple as you say it is (video) then why did the mother not continue with the charges?

See the part that I bolded. I know nothing about the case y'all are discussing, but I do know that victims mothers don't get to decide if criminals are prosecuted or not.

 

Well the media report I posted stated that the mother had dropped it but the police were pursued it on a lesser charge anyway.

Share this post


Link to post

Well the media report I posted...

That's almost always a fail. There may have been a time when the media reported the facts, but those days are long gone. As media went global, this became a bigger problem. Now, someone from Ontario can form inaccurate opinions based on misleading reporting, regarding something that happened in Florida. Because you are so far away, digging for details becomes challenging. My personal rule is: Never believe anything I read in the media unless I can personally verify it through other means.

Share this post


Link to post

Well the media report I posted...

That's almost always a fail. There may have been a time when the media reported the facts, but those days are long gone. As media went global, this became a bigger problem. Now, someone from Ontario can form inaccurate opinions based on misleading reporting, regarding something that happened in Florida. Because you are so far away, digging for details becomes challenging. My personal rule is: Never believe anything I read in the media unless I can personally verify it through other means.

 

I also don't believe someone I don't know who "says" they were at the crime scene and "saw" secret videos.

Share this post


Link to post

Well the media report I posted...

That's almost always a fail. There may have been a time when the media reported the facts, but those days are long gone. As media went global, this became a bigger problem. Now, someone from Ontario can form inaccurate opinions based on misleading reporting, regarding something that happened in Florida. Because you are so far away, digging for details becomes challenging. My personal rule is: Never believe anything I read in the media unless I can personally verify it through other means.

 

I also don't believe someone I don't know who "says" they were at the crime scene and "saw" secret videos.

 

The story was in the Orlando Setinal. CR is a deputy sherrif in Deltona, Fl, which is about 1/2 hour from Orlando. Besides, CR doesn't lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Was John calling shenanigans?
Why, yes. Yes, I was.

 

She she says takes her dog to a park with caches that have been around since before she stopped caching. You're telling me she didn't hunt them?

 

Just in case anyone missed it: I'm calling shenanigans.

So, you think that girlscoutcookies created that account in 2006, just in case something like this happened? I don't get it.

I don't get it either...I understand you're saying something is fishy, but that's all I get. Is that all I'm supposed to get?

Share this post


Link to post

Well the media report I posted...

That's almost always a fail. There may have been a time when the media reported the facts, but those days are long gone. As media went global, this became a bigger problem. Now, someone from Ontario can form inaccurate opinions based on misleading reporting, regarding something that happened in Florida. Because you are so far away, digging for details becomes challenging. My personal rule is: Never believe anything I read in the media unless I can personally verify it through other means.

 

I also don't believe someone I don't know who "says" they were at the crime scene and "saw" secret videos.

 

The story was in the Orlando Setinal. CR is a deputy sherrif in Deltona, Fl, which is about 1/2 hour from Orlando. Besides, CR doesn't lie.

:laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
Was John calling shenanigans?
Why, yes. Yes, I was.

 

She she says takes her dog to a park with caches that have been around since before she stopped caching. You're telling me she didn't hunt them?

 

Just in case anyone missed it: I'm calling shenanigans.

So, you think that girlscoutcookies created that account in 2006, just in case something like this happened? I don't get it.

I don't get it either...I understand you're saying something is fishy, but that's all I get. Is that all I'm supposed to get?

I think that he merely thought that it was suspicious that a former geocacher happened to know Mrs. Kravitz and had discussed this issue with her and happened to be wandering around in a forum for a hobby in which she no longer participates to notice this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Was John calling shenanigans?
Why, yes. Yes, I was.

 

She she says takes her dog to a park with caches that have been around since before she stopped caching. You're telling me she didn't hunt them?

 

Just in case anyone missed it: I'm calling shenanigans.

So, you think that girlscoutcookies created that account in 2006, just in case something like this happened? I don't get it.

I don't get it either...I understand you're saying something is fishy, but that's all I get. Is that all I'm supposed to get?

I think that he merely thought that it was suspicious that a former geocacher happened to know Mrs. Kravitz and had discussed this issue with her and happened to be wandering around in a forum for a hobby in which she no longer participates to notice this thread.

Thank you...I can be a little s*l*o*w sometimes :sunsure:

Share this post


Link to post

Well the media report I posted...

That's almost always a fail. There may have been a time when the media reported the facts, but those days are long gone. As media went global, this became a bigger problem. Now, someone from Ontario can form inaccurate opinions based on misleading reporting, regarding something that happened in Florida. Because you are so far away, digging for details becomes challenging. My personal rule is: Never believe anything I read in the media unless I can personally verify it through other means.

 

I also don't believe someone I don't know who "says" they were at the crime scene and "saw" secret videos.

 

The story was in the Orlando Setinal. CR is a deputy sherrif in Deltona, Fl, which is about 1/2 hour from Orlando. Besides, CR doesn't lie.

I'd trust CR on this one.

Share this post


Link to post

First off, to the original poster, I am sorry to hear about this. The caller clearly overreacted. While I don't fault the police for coming out, I don't think they handled the situation well.

 

Just to clear up the legalese flowing around, probable cause isn't the standard here. Probable cause is required to arrest someone or to obtain a search warrant. Under Terry v. Ohio, the standard for stopping someone and questioning, but not arresting, is reasonable suspicion. To stop and ask, the officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the person they are questioning either has been, is, or is about to be involved in criminal activity. Similarly, to stop and frisk someone for weapons, they must have a reasonable suspicion that the person has a weapon. To do more, that is, arrest or search, they must have a reasonable belief, based on articulable facts, that a criminal act has in fact occurred.

Share this post


Link to post
Was John calling shenanigans?
Why, yes. Yes, I was.

 

She she says takes her dog to a park with caches that have been around since before she stopped caching. You're telling me she didn't hunt them?

 

Just in case anyone missed it: I'm calling shenanigans.

So, you think that girlscoutcookies created that account in 2006, just in case something like this happened? I don't get it.

I don't get it either...I understand you're saying something is fishy, but that's all I get. Is that all I'm supposed to get?

I think that he merely thought that it was suspicious that a former geocacher happened to know Mrs. Kravitz and had discussed this issue with her and happened to be wandering around in a forum for a hobby in which she no longer participates to notice this thread.

 

The OP posted a link to this thread on his log for the cache that it happened at. As Girlscoutcookies said in her post, she was looking at local caches and noticed it. Who said that she no longer participates in the hobby? Are you now saying that cachers must post online to be active in the hobby?

Share this post


Link to post

First off, to the original poster, I am sorry to hear about this. The caller clearly overreacted. While I don't fault the police for coming out, I don't think they handled the situation well.

 

Just to clear up the legalese flowing around, probable cause isn't the standard here. Probable cause is required to arrest someone or to obtain a search warrant. Under Terry v. Ohio, the standard for stopping someone and questioning, but not arresting, is reasonable suspicion. To stop and ask, the officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the person they are questioning either has been, is, or is about to be involved in criminal activity. Similarly, to stop and frisk someone for weapons, they must have a reasonable suspicion that the person has a weapon. To do more, that is, arrest or search, they must have a reasonable belief, based on articulable facts, that a criminal act has in fact occurred.

 

...and to come to their home and question them and their child? Is reasonable suspcion enough for that as well?

Share this post


Link to post
When my daughter first started Girl Scouts about 10 years ago, her troop leader talked to her supervisor since she was very suspicious that my daughter's Dad took her to the meetings. She told the supervisor "Dads just don't do that kind of stuff."

 

Are you KIDDING me? They do in OUR family. My husband does lots of fun stuff with our kids! I know that we are fortunate that he is able to take the time to do that. I was appalled that someone would think it odd that a dad took his daughter to a Brownie meeting! Fortunately, the supervisor told her the same thing, and let me know about it later.

 

It may be hard for some people to understand, but there ARE dads who spend quality time with their kids! He has much more patience than I do, and he was the one who took the kids to the museums, amusement parks, playing at the park, bike rides, and I can't imagine someone "questioning him" because he was out spending time with his child.

One of my best friends was a dad like that. He had four daughters, and was very active in their lives. Dads should do that kind of stuff with their kids, and it's a shame that it raises anyone's suspicions when they do.

 

I miss him.

Share this post


Link to post

First off, to the original poster, I am sorry to hear about this. The caller clearly overreacted. While I don't fault the police for coming out, I don't think they handled the situation well.

 

Just to clear up the legalese flowing around, probable cause isn't the standard here. Probable cause is required to arrest someone or to obtain a search warrant. Under Terry v. Ohio, the standard for stopping someone and questioning, but not arresting, is reasonable suspicion. To stop and ask, the officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the person they are questioning either has been, is, or is about to be involved in criminal activity. Similarly, to stop and frisk someone for weapons, they must have a reasonable suspicion that the person has a weapon. To do more, that is, arrest or search, they must have a reasonable belief, based on articulable facts, that a criminal act has in fact occurred.

 

...and to come to their home and question them and their child? Is reasonable suspcion enough for that as well?

 

Nah. I covered RAS earlier in the thread. The officers who went to the house to ask questions didn't need RAS... one can knock on a door and ask questions without it. There's no obligation to speak with the police or answer said questions, under the related circumstances. The OP could have simply turned the officers away at the door. Most people don't understand their rights and assume simply because a cop wants to do something, then they can. Know your rights!

Without RAS, they would have no option to enter the home. Someone else commented that they would just come back with a warrant and a social worker. Based on the police dispatch (man walking with girl, no criminal behavior indicated)this is clearly incorrect. No judge is going to issue a warrant because a guy was walking in the park with a young child and no cop is going to try to get one, short of the OP being a registered sex offender.

 

FWIW, I didn't fault the cops for stopping by to ask questions but the whole part about "talk to your daughter alone" is hinky. This is either embellishment or over-the-top police work, IMHO.

Edited by EagleRiver_Baileys

Share this post


Link to post

FWIW, I didn't fault the cops for stopping by to ask questions but the whole part about "talk to your daughter alone" is hinky. This is either embellishment or over-the-top police work, IMHO.

 

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post

First off, to the original poster, I am sorry to hear about this. The caller clearly overreacted. While I don't fault the police for coming out, I don't think they handled the situation well.

 

Just to clear up the legalese flowing around, probable cause isn't the standard here. Probable cause is required to arrest someone or to obtain a search warrant. Under Terry v. Ohio, the standard for stopping someone and questioning, but not arresting, is reasonable suspicion. To stop and ask, the officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the person they are questioning either has been, is, or is about to be involved in criminal activity. Similarly, to stop and frisk someone for weapons, they must have a reasonable suspicion that the person has a weapon. To do more, that is, arrest or search, they must have a reasonable belief, based on articulable facts, that a criminal act has in fact occurred.

 

...and to come to their home and question them and their child? Is reasonable suspcion enough for that as well?

 

Nah. I covered RAS earlier in the thread. The officers who went to the house to ask questions didn't need RAS... one can knock on a door and ask questions without it. There's no obligation to speak with the police or answer said questions, under the related circumstances. The OP could have simply turned the officers away at the door. Most people don't understand their rights and assume simply because a cop wants to do something, then they can. Know your rights!

Without RAS, they would have no option to enter the home. Someone else commented that they would just come back with a warrant and a social worker. Based on the police dispatch (man walking with girl, no criminal behavior indicated)this is clearly incorrect. No judge is going to issue a warrant because a guy was walking in the park with a young child and no cop is going to try to get one, short of the OP being a registered sex offender.

 

FWIW, I didn't fault the cops for stopping by to ask questions but the whole part about "talk to your daughter alone" is hinky. This is either embellishment or over-the-top police work, IMHO.

 

Yeah, I was talking about the legalese flowing on page 1. Hit reply, and only then did I see that this thread stretched out to 5 (!) pages. Concur with everything you've set out.

 

OP could have turned the police away, he did not. The officers questioning the child alone in the house was the part I took issue with.

Share this post


Link to post

The officers questioning the child alone in the house was the part I took issue with.

I suspect that's true for most of us. Of course, I'm sure they were given permission by the father, but many people do not really know when they can say "no" to the police.

Share this post


Link to post

I also don't believe someone I don't know who "says" they were at the crime scene and "saw" secret videos.

That's prudent. Every scam since the beginning of time has relied on two factors: First, you need someone who presents them self as something they are not. Second, you need someone to believe that person. You don't know me, nor do you know my qualifications. My entire Internet persona could be an elaborate construction. While I could tell you I started my law enforcement career as a US Army military police officer in 1982, then I joined the tiny police force of Mascotte Florida, working there for a couple years. After that, (with a few years in-between working at Epcot), I joined the Seminole County Sheriff's Office, in 1993. I have been there ever since. I could tell you that the phone number for SCSO is 407-665-6600, that my legal name is Peter Brewer, and my radio ID is 4812. While they could verify that they do have an employee by that name, it would not serve as proof that I am he. For the most part, they do not know of my Geocaching identity. Heck, I could be a 17 year old McDonald's fry chef from Hoboken!

 

For not trusting mr, I give you kudos.

 

My concern is that you did trust some mook of a reporter from half a continent away, presenting their version, (evil cops hassle inner-city youth who was "only trying to help"), as fact. Had you treated the news article with the same degree of cynicism you gave my claim, we would not be having this conversation.

 

Besides, CR doesn't lie.

I wouldn't go that far. If you were to read my Clan Riffster Family History cache pages, you would see that I am perfectly willing to dissemble, when it is appropriate. But in this case, fibbing would serve no purpose. It would be akin to me claiming to have logged finds in all 50 states. Just a few mouse clicks would prove I was lying. Police work is the same way. Everything we do is a matter of public record. Lying about criminal investigations is a pointless endeavor, since, (at least in this case), all anyone has to do to prove me wrong is to call the agency in question and request a copy of the report. For a modest fee, they will fax it right to you. True, some information will be blacked out because the predator in question is a juvenile, but you would be able to get the pertinent details.

Share this post


Link to post

I could tell you that the phone number for SCSO is 407-665-6600, that my legal name is Peter Brewer, and my radio ID is 4812.

 

MWA HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Share this post


Link to post

This thread is so full of fail.

 

First, all Geocachers, better yet, all Americans should know their rights.

 

http://www.flexyourrights.org/

 

I saw this link posted once before in this thread and it needs to be posted again. For those of you who haven't watched Busted, go watch it. Watch it with your children.

 

Second, the cops didn't do anything wrong here as they only did what they were allowed to do. As has been pointed out time and again, the cops can come and knock on your door and ask you questions all they want. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO TALK TO THEM! The police have no right to question your underage daughter and keep you or her lawyer from being present (except with the possible case of having a whole lot more evidence of a crime than was present in this case).

 

Would all cops have asked to question the father and daughter separately? That is irrelevant. The relevant thing is the OP in this case should have protected his daughter and himself and definitely said not to this.

 

And that brings me to my third point, I wonder about people who would be disturbed by this event. Had the OP known his rights and exercised them, this should have been an excellent example to his daughter of how free Americans live a life of liberty. The police arrived to question the family and the family exercised their rights and protected themselves from the intrusion of big brother with the power of the 4th Amendment.

 

Instead, we have a father who is freaked out and a daughter who is following the father's example in being freaked out.

 

Learn your rights ladies and gentleman and exercise them. Clearly the OP is giving the government power over him in allowing this situation to bother him and his daughter.

 

Sorry, I just can't jump onto the "oh I am so sorry you are a victim" bandwagon. I am sorry you made yourself a victim. It probably isn't your fault because you have never had to exercise your rights before. Well now you know the consequences of not knowing your rights.

 

The question is, "What will you do about it?" Will you arm yourself with the knowledge to protect your daughter? Will you use this as a learning moment and teach your family about exerting your rights in the presence of authority?

 

I am pro-law enforcement all the way. However, I will still politely exercise my rights when being contacted by them for anything other than a mutual or business relationship.

 

Again, go watch this 45 minute video. It will surely open your eyes. Busted the Citizens Guide to Surviving Police Encounters

Share this post


Link to post

I could tell you that the phone number for SCSO is 407-665-6600, that my legal name is Peter Brewer, and my radio ID is 4812.

 

MWA HAHAHAHAHAHA.

:ph34r::blink::lol:

Share this post


Link to post

Besides, CR doesn't lie. lies through his teeth.

I wouldn't go that far
Awww, gee, Dad. OK, I will edit it.

Share this post


Link to post

I could be a 17 year old McDonald's fry chef from Hoboken!

 

Just for clarification, are you a 17 year old McDonald's fry chef from Hoboken?

Share this post


Link to post

I could be a 17 year old McDonald's fry chef from Hoboken!

 

Just for clarification, are you a 17 year old McDonald's fry chef from Hoboken?

Uh... Maybe. It's the Internet, brother, you just never know. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

I could be a 17 year old McDonald's fry chef from Hoboken!

 

Just for clarification, are you a 17 year old McDonald's fry chef from Hoboken?

Uh... Maybe. It's the Internet, brother, you just never know. :ph34r:

He could even be a dog.

idog.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know any law enforcement types so if any out there would like to weigh in on this, I'd be interested in hearing it. It seems to me that the vast majority of `go check out this guy in the woods' calls end up being nothing. So perhaps many cops, when called to such a thing actually assume it's probably nothing, and go check it out because they were called, not really expecting anything bad to be happening, just checking it out on the off chance that some bad stuff is going down.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know any law enforcement types so if any out there would like to weigh in on this, I'd be interested in hearing it.

At least one law enforcement officer has participated in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know any law enforcement types so if any out there would like to weigh in on this, I'd be interested in hearing it.

At least one law enforcement officer has participated in this thread.

 

Yes I see that, I meant perhaps one can confirm whether or not it's true that on such a call they would generally believe that `it's probably nothing' but check on it on the very outside chance that some criminal activity is underway.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know any law enforcement types so if any out there would like to weigh in on this, I'd be interested in hearing it.

At least one law enforcement officer has participated in this thread.

The guy from Hoboken?

Share this post


Link to post
I don't know any law enforcement types so if any out there would like to weigh in on this, I'd be interested in hearing it. It seems to me that the vast majority of `go check out this guy in the woods' calls end up being nothing. So perhaps many cops, when called to such a thing actually assume it's probably nothing, and go check it out because they were called, not really expecting anything bad to be happening, just checking it out on the off chance that some bad stuff is going down.

 

Pretty much.

 

I can see it from both sides. I'm a cop. I'm also a father of a now grown daughter.

 

Father side: No, Officer, you do not have my permission to come in or to talk to my daughter alone.*

 

Cop side (to father): The only thing I want to find out is if everything is okay. As a loving father to a little girl wouldn't you want me to make sure everything was okay or whether a friend or family member may be harming your child?

 

Cop side to the daughter I'd probably just ask a few self-referencing questions about her day in the park. Interviewing a child is a lot different than interviewing an adult.

 

I'm constantly aware of how children perceive cops. Cops are scarey enough as it is. It doesn't help that so many parents make cops into boogeymen. "Watch out they're coming to get you!" I guess if I really wanted to be a hero I'd be fireman.

 

It kind of sounds like the OP was being overly sensitive to the situation.

 

For instance, a little story of folks looking sideways at me. My daughter was about 14 years old I think. She was baby sitting and spilled hot cocoa in her lap. Of course, she calls crying and I jump into action. Got someone to look after the kids and took her to the clinic. The burns were in place in which I was to allow her privacy--f you know what I mean. However, when the nurses came in and out of the room they kept giving me these odd looks. It was later that I realized what they were thinking. Scalding is a form of child abuse. My daughter was interviewed and then nothing came of it. Yes, the suspicion was there. It was looked at and saw it as nothing but an accident. Nothing more saw said in that respect.

 

How a parent reacts to an incident is important for the child. Yes, most folks don't know how to react as it is outside their experiences. Still, it's important to put the incident into perspective and move on.

 

*Hint: Don't tell a cop what he can or can't do. We love nothing more than some layperson telling us how to do our job or what we can and can't do. It's your permission you are granting or denying.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm constantly aware of how children perceive cops. Cops are scarey enough as it is. It doesn't help that so many parents make cops into boogeymen. "Watch out they're coming to get you!" I guess if I really wanted to be a hero I'd be fireman.

 

I think it depends on the child and how they were raised. I have no inkling at all that my 4 year old daughter is in any way afraid of police, I certainly don't put any such fear in her and honestly I don't think she's even spoken to one for any reason. But I can see how some might be, lots of people are suspicious of cops and as such project that onto their children.

 

Stuff like this is why I don't envy police and would not want that job. On a call like this, the cop knows it's `probably nothing' but there's also a slight chance they're going to come up on some child molesting freak, and an even more remote though possible chance that you'll find a maniacal madman who will open fire on you on sight. That kind of uncertainty on pretty much every routine call can't be fun.

Share this post


Link to post

This isn't just a geocaching thing trust me. I almost had the cops called on me when we were stuck in traffic because of an accident. We had stopped due to it with me GF and my two daughters that we just picked up from their moms. After about 10 min of setting in the truck we noticed other kids getting out of their vehicles and playing, in stopped traffic!! WT.... So my kids seen other kids out playing and asked if they could, I proceeded to tell them no ans they asked several more times. They kept complaining of being bored, but I didn't want them out playing around stopped cars on the road. So what happens next is a lady goes walking by my windows looking at me very suspiciously. I didn't think much of it and me and my GF continued to talk. She then approached the truck and asked me to roll down the window so I cracked it open. She asked if the kids in the back were mine and me and my GF both said yes. I then asked why. She said because one of them drew a sad face on her drawing board and held it up to the window. She said that she was just about to call the police and noticed that the other child had red hair to match mine so she decided to ask first. I almost had the police called on me and my GF because our kids were mad that we would not let them out of the truck and decided to draw a sad face and show it to people.... This kinda thing can happen anywhere at anytime, and you and your daughter should not let it get in the way of a good relationship. I recommend that you and your daughter go back to the park and find the people playing with the dog and talk to them and THANK them for what they did. I know that a lot of people may disagree, but if what if they stop doing that and a child is in actual danger? And talking to them will help and bring closure to an unfortunate situation. If you stop geocaching with your daughter over this then what other things in your relationship will be effected? Break the trend now before all is lost.

Share this post


Link to post

She then approached the truck and asked me to roll down the window so I cracked it open. She asked if the kids in the back were mine and me and my GF both said yes.

 

Those two sentences are the difference between what happened to you and what happened to the op. If she had called the police on you just because the kids drew a smiley face and she didn't investigate further, then you would be justified to be mad. That's what happened to the op.

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 7

×
×
  • Create New...