Cops called on on me while hiking with daughter!

April 8, 2011

This is the reason I almost never look for caches in playgrounds anymore. As a 61-year-old single male, I just don't feel comfortable looking around and "acting suspicious" in an area like that.

If I can tell from the cache page or an aerial photo that a cache is hidden in a playground, the cache immediately goes on my Ignore List. If I approach an area that turns out to be a playground, I walk away from it, with very few exceptions.

It's really sad that we live in such a paranoid world; and it's really sad that there are people who inspire that sort of paranoia.

--Larry

In San Francisco it is even against the law for an adult to be in a playground unless accompanying a child (a law I support).

LMAO. Whackos

20.7k · April 8, 2011

This is the reason I almost never look for caches in playgrounds anymore. As a 61-year-old single male, I just don't feel comfortable looking around and "acting suspicious" in an area like that.

If I can tell from the cache page or an aerial photo that a cache is hidden in a playground, the cache immediately goes on my Ignore List. If I approach an area that turns out to be a playground, I walk away from it, with very few exceptions.

It's really sad that we live in such a paranoid world; and it's really sad that there are people who inspire that sort of paranoia.

--Larry

In San Francisco it is even against the law for an adult to be in a playground unless accompanying a child (a law I support).

LMAO. Whackos

A search of San Francisco Code found no such law. I did see a law forbidding 'aggressive solicitation in these areas, but nothing that said that an adult cannot simply be at a playground. How about a link? Edited April 8, 2011 by sbell111

15.4k · April 8, 2011

In San Francisco it is even against the law for an adult to be in a playground unless accompanying a child (a law I support).
LMAO. Whackos
A search of San Francisco Code found no such law. I did see a law forbidding 'aggressive solicitation in these areas, but nothing that said that an adult cannot simply be at a playground. How about a link?

It isn't just San Francisco. I saw similar signs at a Santa Cruz playground. It may not be in the city code. It may be a regulation created by the parks department.

April 8, 2011

A few years ago, I was driving in central Texas. I might have been going a little fast. All of a sudden, lights lit up behind me and I was pulled over. I placed my hands high on the wheel, where the policeman could easily see them and had my window already open.

“Sir, did you know you were speeding?” The kind young man asked me.

“Sorry Officer, I didn’t realize my radar detector wasn’t pulled in.”

“Sir, you were going 90 in a 60 mph zone.”

“I was trying to keep up with the rest of the traffic.”

“There are no other vehicles around, Sir.”

“Yes I know. That’s how far ahead of me they are.”

“Sir, have you been drinking?”

“What do you mean, have I been drinking? You are the trained professional!”

“Sir, I need to see your license and registration.”

“Sure thing, Officer. Can you hold my beer while I get my wallet?”

“Sir, you need to step out of your car, please.”

As I opened my door, I saw his weapon. “Hey,” I said, “Is that a 9mm? That’s nothing compared to this 44 magnum.”

The officer then proceeded to grab me. I chuckled. “I thought you had to be in relatively good physical shape to be a Police Officer.?”

Next thing you know, I was sprawled across the hood of my car, being frisked/patted down.

“Ease up Officer! You know, I was going to be a cop but I decided to finish high school instead.”

As he tossed me in the back seat, I got upset. “Bad cop! No doughnut for you!”

It went downhill from there.

My gosh you guys get worked up easily here. It's a game. It's suppose to be fun. Group hug?

15.4k · April 8, 2011

Here's a couple references to the "No adults allowed unless accompanied by children" law in SF.

Some of the signs list "PARK CODE SEC 3.02" which is a generic law requiring people to obey "the notices, prohibitions or directions on any sign posted by the Recreation and Park Commission or the Recreation and Park Department."

Others list CPC 653G, so presumably, the posted sign counts as "being asked to leave" by someone with authority to ask you to leave. But IANAL.

April 8, 2011

Unfortunately it is just the times in which we live in. I know it stinks to have someone suspect you, and the police respond to it. but I would rather have the police react to a susipous call rather than ignore it. Explain to your daughter it is good you have concerned citizens. make it a positve experience, plus you won't have issues with the police there anymore because they know who you are now. that's a good thing

20.7k · April 8, 2011

Here's a couple references to the "No adults allowed unless accompanied by children" law in SF.

Some of the signs list "PARK CODE SEC 3.02" which is a generic law requiring people to obey "the notices, prohibitions or directions on any sign posted by the Recreation and Park Commission or the Recreation and Park Department."

Others list CPC 653G, so presumably, the posted sign counts as "being asked to leave" by someone with authority to ask you to leave. But IANAL.

Sounds like a future civil rights lawsuit.

4.2k · April 8, 2011

Here's a couple references to the "No adults allowed unless accompanied by children" law in SF.

Some of the signs list "PARK CODE SEC 3.02" which is a generic law requiring people to obey "the notices, prohibitions or directions on any sign posted by the Recreation and Park Commission or the Recreation and Park Department."

Others list CPC 653G, so presumably, the posted sign counts as "being asked to leave" by someone with authority to ask you to leave. But IANAL.

Sounds like a future civil rights lawsuit.

Without wanting to get too sidetracked with this particular issue, I have always felt that a lawsuit would not get too far. It is basically a time, place, or manner type of restriction which is presumed to be rationally related to a legitimate interest. It is hard to imagine that in this day and age, you could convince someone that keeping a single adult out of a playground for children does not have a rational basis -- unless you could convince a court that it is irrational to keep geocachers away from a cache. That would work for me.

April 8, 2011

Here's a couple references to the "No adults allowed unless accompanied by children" law in SF.

Some of the signs list "PARK CODE SEC 3.02" which is a generic law requiring people to obey "the notices, prohibitions or directions on any sign posted by the Recreation and Park Commission or the Recreation and Park Department."

Others list CPC 653G, so presumably, the posted sign counts as "being asked to leave" by someone with authority to ask you to leave. But IANAL.

Sounds like a future civil rights lawsuit.

Without wanting to get too sidetracked with this particular issue, I have always felt that a lawsuit would not get too far. It is basically a time, place, or manner type of restriction which is presumed to be rationally related to a legitimate interest. It is hard to imagine that in this day and age, you could convince someone that keeping a single adult out of a playground for children does not have a rational basis -- unless you could convince a court that it is irrational to keep geocachers away from a cache. That would work for me.

San Fran resident: Officer My child is out on that playground, I want to get her and bring her home. It's time for supper.

Officer: You can't go get her. It's against the law.

April 8, 2011

*oops*

Edited April 8, 2011 by mresoteric

20.7k · April 8, 2011

Here's a couple references to the "No adults allowed unless accompanied by children" law in SF.

Some of the signs list "PARK CODE SEC 3.02" which is a generic law requiring people to obey "the notices, prohibitions or directions on any sign posted by the Recreation and Park Commission or the Recreation and Park Department."

Others list CPC 653G, so presumably, the posted sign counts as "being asked to leave" by someone with authority to ask you to leave. But IANAL.

Sounds like a future civil rights lawsuit.

Without wanting to get too sidetracked with this particular issue, I have always felt that a lawsuit would not get too far. It is basically a time, place, or manner type of restriction which is presumed to be rationally related to a legitimate interest. It is hard to imagine that in this day and age, you could convince someone that keeping a single adult out of a playground for children does not have a rational basis -- unless you could convince a court that it is irrational to keep geocachers away from a cache. That would work for me.

In my opinion, for the bolded bit to work, you would have to presume that the vast majority of single adults are predators (or that even a reasonably large minority are). A better rule would be to forbid children from using the playground without their parents/guardian/caregiver present. Edited April 8, 2011 by sbell111

5.3k · April 8, 2011

It is hard to imagine that in this day and age, you could convince someone that keeping a single adult out of a playground for children does not have a rational basis

In my opinion, for the bolded bit to work, you would have to presume that the vast majority of single adults are predators (or that even a reasonably large minority are). A better rule would be to forbid children from using the playground without their parents/guardian/caregiver present.

Mulvaney also expressed a widely-believed myth: that predators are more common today than they were in the past. In fact, the opposite is true, but media hype has convinced everyone that their kids are in constant danger of stranger abduction.

P.S. Notice how trimming quotes can preserve context without making everyone read through a page of irrelevant material?

20.7k · April 8, 2011

It is hard to imagine that in this day and age, you could convince someone that keeping a single adult out of a playground for children does not have a rational basis

In my opinion, for the bolded bit to work, you would have to presume that the vast majority of single adults are predators (or that even a reasonably large minority are). A better rule would be to forbid children from using the playground without their parents/guardian/caregiver present.

Mulvaney also expressed a widely-believed myth: that predators are more common today than they were in the past. In fact, the opposite is true, but media hype has convinced everyone that their kids are in constant danger of stranger abduction.

P.S. Notice how trimming quotes can preserve context without making everyone read through a page of irrelevant material?

One shouldn't expect the world to change just because he has developed a pet peave. (That's advice that is applicable to so many issues covered in these forums.)

Edited April 8, 2011 by sbell111

4.2k · April 8, 2011

Mulvaney also expressed a widely-believed myth: that predators are more common today than they were in the past. In fact, the opposite is true, but media hype has convinced everyone that their kids are in constant danger of stranger abduction.

To be clear, I was just noting the context of whether people would find there was a rational basis for restricting single adults from playgrounds, without expressing whether this is more or less common than in the past. Undoubtedly, there has been a lot of media hype that have convinced people that satantic cults were prevalent in Central California, that children are in constant danger of being abducted by strangers, and the like -- and some people have been swept up in that with unfortunate results. That of course does not mean that predators do not exist. The one time I made the front page of our legal paper was when I was defending sexual predators so I am familiar with them, but have never felt my daughter to be in danger when we have been in parks and playgrounds -- even if a single guy might have entered her playground to look for a cache. This is a good enough practice for me:

A better rule would be to forbid children from using the playground without their parents/guardian/caregiver present.

Still,there might be better rules than to forbid single adults from entering a playground, but that does not mean that the rules that exist are subject to a successful constitutional challenge. Its not that hard to find a rational basis for a time, place or manner restriction.

Edited April 8, 2011 by mulvaney

20.7k · April 8, 2011

Mulvaney also expressed a widely-believed myth: that predators are more common today than they were in the past. In fact, the opposite is true, but media hype has convinced everyone that their kids are in constant danger of stranger abduction.

To be clear, I was just noting the context of whether people would find there was a rational basis for restricting single adults from playgrounds, without expressing whether this is more or less common than in the past. Undoubtedly, there has been a lot of media hype that have convinced people that satantic cults were prevalent in Central California, that children are in constant danger of being abducted by strangers, and the like. The one time I made the front page of our legal paper was when I was defending sexual predators so I am familiar with them, but have never felt my daughter to be in danger -- even if a single guy might have entered her playground to look for a cache.

A better rule would be to forbid children from using the playground without their parents/guardian/caregiver present.

There might be better rules than to forbid single adults from entering a playground, but that does not mean that the rules that exist are subject to a successful constitutional challenge.

James Kozlowski, a professor at George Mason University and a legal consultant for the National Recreation and Park Association, said the Miami Beach law is unlikely to generate controversy because most parents are vigilant about strangers.

Still, he said, policies that restrict people's access to public facilities are on constitutional "thin ice.''

"People respond to the headlines,'' Kozlowski said. "It's a rule that sweeps up a lot of legitimate behavior and innocent people.''

Edited April 8, 2011 by sbell111

April 10, 2011

Actually, the cops should have gone after the couple for filing a false report of a crime. That is in fact a misdemeanor. You may want to find out if that was done.

The other thing you will most certainly want to do is contact the cache owner. Caches on/near playgrounds always pose problems for adult cachers, and that may need to be noted more clearly in the description of the cache. The owner will also want to make certain he has the appropriate permissions for the placement of that cache.

When Pugs and I have hidden our (admittedly few) caches, we have contacted the park district or other property owners to obtain permission. We have given them a description of geocaching, and information about our specific cache and its location. That's actually the first thing that jumped out at me when I read the rules of caching for the first time. Making sure that the property owners know about the cache is a big help in preventing situations like the one that happened to you.

In your place, I would use this as an opportunity to teach your daughter, but I'd also use it to help educate other cachers out there. Sometimes they can be pretty clueless.

22k · April 10, 2011

Actually, the cops should have gone after the couple for filing a false report of a crime. That is in fact a misdemeanor. You may want to find out if that was done.

They reported an actual crime or a questionable situation?

20.7k · April 11, 2011

Actually, the cops should have gone after the couple for filing a false report of a crime. That is in fact a misdemeanor. You may want to find out if that was done.

The other thing you will most certainly want to do is contact the cache owner. Caches on/near playgrounds always pose problems for adult cachers, and that may need to be noted more clearly in the description of the cache. The owner will also want to make certain he has the appropriate permissions for the placement of that cache.

When Pugs and I have hidden our (admittedly few) caches, we have contacted the park district or other property owners to obtain permission. We have given them a description of geocaching, and information about our specific cache and its location. That's actually the first thing that jumped out at me when I read the rules of caching for the first time. Making sure that the property owners know about the cache is a big help in preventing situations like the one that happened to you.

In your place, I would use this as an opportunity to teach your daughter, but I'd also use it to help educate other cachers out there. Sometimes they can be pretty clueless.

Permission will never prevent this kind of situation because the land manager was not involved in any part of the incident.

It should also be noted that per the OP, the cache wasn't near any playground. It was off of a walking trail in the back part of the park, past the soccer fields.

April 13, 2011

Saw thisover on Reddit and couldn't help but think of this thread. The almost 1500 comments for it have a ton of men saying the same story. You aren't alone.

Edited April 13, 2011 by stinger503

April 29, 2011

Its up to us cachers to stop these kinda things.

19k · April 29, 2011

Its up to us cachers to stop these kinda things.

:unsure:

ahhh... ok. :blink:

How would you propose we do that?

Edited April 29, 2011 by knowschad

8.3k · April 29, 2011

Its up to us cachers to stop these kinda things.

ahhh... ok.

How would you propose we do that?

I suppose if we all archive our caches that should take care of the problem. Now that I think about it, it would solve GS's performance problem also.

May 4, 2011

Its up to us cachers to stop these kinda things.

ahhh... ok.

How would you propose we do that?

Let the muggles think about that while the cachers Take a break.

19k · May 4, 2011

Its up to us cachers to stop these kinda things.

ahhh... ok.

How would you propose we do that?

Let the muggles think about that while the cachers Take a break.

OK. You seriously lost me there. If what you are saying is important enough to you, please elaborate.

3.3k · May 4, 2011

Its up to us cachers to stop these kinda things.

ahhh... ok.

How would you propose we do that?

Let the muggles think about that while the cachers Take a break.

OK. You seriously lost me there. If what you are saying is important enough to you, please elaborate.

I am lost as well so it isn't just a regional thing.

19k · May 4, 2011

Its up to us cachers to stop these kinda things.

ahhh... ok.

How would you propose we do that?

Let the muggles think about that while the cachers Take a break.

OK. You seriously lost me there. If what you are saying is important enough to you, please elaborate.

I am lost as well so it isn't just a regional thing.

It must be a human thing.

May 4, 2011

Mulvaney also expressed a widely-believed myth: that predators are more common today than they were in the past. In fact, the opposite is true, but media hype has convinced everyone that their kids are in constant danger of stranger abduction.

With the population ever increasing you think that people are getting better? The world is statistically getting worse and worse every day. For your theory to be true we would have to not increase proportionately the amount of weirdos with the population, but also reduce the concentration of weirdos in general. That sounds a little less realistic than I am comfortable with. :blink:

May 5, 2011

Mulvaney also expressed a widely-believed myth: that predators are more common today than they were in the past. In fact, the opposite is true, but media hype has convinced everyone that their kids are in constant danger of stranger abduction.

With the population ever increasing you think that people are getting better? The world is statistically getting worse and worse every day. For your theory to be true we would have to not increase proportionately the amount of weirdos with the population, but also reduce the concentration of weirdos in general. That sounds a little less realistic than I am comfortable with.

I disagree. Society is getting statistically worse every day (if that's even true in your mind, it really isn't in mine) because society is now keeping statistics about things that we see as negative. The media and other outlets of information focus more on bad than good when distributing information. People, by and large, are still inherently good for the most part. But there's no news there, now is there?

May 5, 2011

Its up to us cachers to stop these kinda things.

ahhh... ok.

How would you propose we do that?

Let the muggles think about that while the cachers Take a break.

OK. You seriously lost me there. If what you are saying is important enough to you, please elaborate.

Muggles should come up to cachers and ask them what they're doing before they call up the cops.

That's what I was trying to say. :anitongue:

May 5, 2011

I disagree. Society is getting statistically worse every day (if that's even true in your mind, it really isn't in mine) because society is now keeping statistics about things that we see as negative. The media and other outlets of information focus more on bad than good when distributing information. People, by and large, are still inherently good for the most part. But there's no news there, now is there?

That is a very abstract bit of optimism from a cacher with a war based user id.

May 5, 2011

I disagree. Society is getting statistically worse every day (if that's even true in your mind, it really isn't in mine) because society is now keeping statistics about things that we see as negative. The media and other outlets of information focus more on bad than good when distributing information. People, by and large, are still inherently good for the most part. But there's no news there, now is there?

That is a very abstract bit of optimism from a cacher with a war based user id.

I have no idea where you get "war based" from my user ID. The name? The avatar? Neither would be what I consider to be "war based". And how that makes my "optimism" abstract doesn't really make sense to me either. Not trying to be a jerk, I just don't get what you were trying to say there.

19k · May 5, 2011

It is hard to imagine that in this day and age, you could convince someone that keeping a single adult out of a playground for children does not have a rational basis

In my opinion, for the bolded bit to work, you would have to presume that the vast majority of single adults are predators (or that even a reasonably large minority are). A better rule would be to forbid children from using the playground without their parents/guardian/caregiver present.

Mulvaney also expressed a widely-believed myth: that predators are more common today than they were in the past. In fact, the opposite is true, but media hype has convinced everyone that their kids are in constant danger of stranger abduction.

P.S. Notice how trimming quotes can preserve context without making everyone read through a page of irrelevant material?

I'm surprised to see a statistician making an unsupported statement like that. Got a citation? I would expect that to be a very difficult statement to support, since it would depend on current societal mores and record keeping, and probably many more variables that I'm not bright enough to spot.

May 5, 2011

It is hard to imagine that in this day and age, you could convince someone that keeping a single adult out of a playground for children does not have a rational basis

In my opinion, for the bolded bit to work, you would have to presume that the vast majority of single adults are predators (or that even a reasonably large minority are). A better rule would be to forbid children from using the playground without their parents/guardian/caregiver present.

Mulvaney also expressed a widely-believed myth: that predators are more common today than they were in the past. In fact, the opposite is true, but media hype has convinced everyone that their kids are in constant danger of stranger abduction.

P.S. Notice how trimming quotes can preserve context without making everyone read through a page of irrelevant material?

I'm surprised to see a statistician making an unsupported statement like that. Got a citation? I would expect that to be a very difficult statement to support, since it would depend on current societal mores and record keeping, and probably many more variables that I'm not bright enough to spot.

I believe the same thing, and there are statistics to support it, I just don't know the sources.

I remember learning in my sociology class (210 I believe) in college over 15 years ago that if you look at one set of statistics that crime rates are going up (assuming here that child abuse/abduction/molestation rates follow the same trend) but another set of statistics show that crime rates year over year remain farely constant. The difference is that one set of statistics follows reported crimes and another follows all crime, including those that don't get reported. How they predict that (statistics probably) I am not sure but what it shows is that crimes (again, assuming here that child abuse/abduction/molestation rates follow the same trend) are being reported with much more frequency and consequently it appears that rates are going up when in fact they are remaining the same or even going down.

Thats what I learned in my Sociology class anyway, but don't ask me, I'm a microbiologist...

May 5, 2011

But that is like saying my proof for my argument is that there is no proof! A lack pf evidence that there were the same amount of predators doesn't prove your statement to be true, it only casts doubt.

19k · May 5, 2011

It is hard to imagine that in this day and age, you could convince someone that keeping a single adult out of a playground for children does not have a rational basis

In my opinion, for the bolded bit to work, you would have to presume that the vast majority of single adults are predators (or that even a reasonably large minority are). A better rule would be to forbid children from using the playground without their parents/guardian/caregiver present.

Mulvaney also expressed a widely-believed myth: that predators are more common today than they were in the past. In fact, the opposite is true, but media hype has convinced everyone that their kids are in constant danger of stranger abduction.

P.S. Notice how trimming quotes can preserve context without making everyone read through a page of irrelevant material?

I'm surprised to see a statistician making an unsupported statement like that. Got a citation? I would expect that to be a very difficult statement to support, since it would depend on current societal mores and record keeping, and probably many more variables that I'm not bright enough to spot.

I believe the same thing, and there are statistics to support it, I just don't know the sources.

I remember learning in my sociology class (210 I believe) in college over 15 years ago that if you look at one set of statistics that crime rates are going up (assuming here that child abuse/abduction/molestation rates follow the same trend) but another set of statistics show that crime rates year over year remain farely constant. The difference is that one set of statistics follows reported crimes and another follows all crime, including those that don't get reported. How they predict that (statistics probably) I am not sure but what it shows is that crimes (again, assuming here that child abuse/abduction/molestation rates follow the same trend) are being reported with much more frequency and consequently it appears that rates are going up when in fact they are remaining the same or even going down.

Thats what I learned in my Sociology class anyway, but don't ask me, I'm a microbiologist...

In addition to those variables, laws get added and changed and society's attitude & tolerance toward them change with time.

May 5, 2011

I just don't get what you were trying to say there.

True

May 5, 2011

I just don't get what you were trying to say there.

True

Ok, well, I suppose I can't be held accountable for your inability to distinguish a passion for flying and the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution for... "war."

In addition to those variables, laws get added and changed and society's attitude & tolerance toward them change with time.

This is what I was saying earlier, although knowschad said it shorter and sweeter. Attitudes and opinions change much, much more often than crime rates and percentages of criminals amongst the total population.

Cops called on on me while hiking with daughter!

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation