Jump to content

Teen Geocacher shot in leg for tresspassing?


Mr.Yuck

Recommended Posts

One question? Did the man with the gun say "get off my property or I'll shoot" as a warning...or just "get out" and started shooting immediately? Language barrier or not, he should have done the former IMO. He should also have known that bullets + ground = ricochet + potential injury. If he didn't...he shouldn't have had a gun.

Granted he had an issue as he was robbed, but how long ago did that happen? Surely the presence of geocachers could deter burglars? There are more good people out there than bad in my experience too.

I am just thankful that the family aren't grieving the loss of a son/nephew. I wonder how they feel towards the man now - hopefully their medical bills will be paid.

Link to comment

This is why I'm glad I live in a country where you're not normally allowed to have lethal firearms in your posession. The USA seems to believe that incidents like this are a fair price to pay for the right to have a people-killing device of your own...

 

You let everyone carry lethal weapons, and idiots like this will get hold of one and take a shot at anyone they like. How he can defend shooting at a child, who is running away from him, without being in any danger himself, I'll never know. It could so easily have been fatal for the child (and if the father had a gun in HIS car, he'd likely have come back and killed the old fool then...)

I always have a wry smile when I read this type of comment. If the ownership of guns is so widespread and liberal then why was there only one shooter in this scenario. (and many others) If all the adults were packin' then there would have been a gun battle surely.

 

There were more responsible adults there than irresponsible adults so maybe more responsible people should carry guns.

Link to comment

I was curious about the property records, so I looked up the San Bernardino County GIS and learned that the Heim Trust does indeed own the land where the original John Wayne cache was placed. The Riverside Cement Company owns the land where the new John Wayne - Again cache is placed. I hope they will not be as touchy if people cross their land.

Link to comment

I was curious about the property records, so I looked up the San Bernardino County GIS and learned that the Heim Trust does indeed own the land where the original John Wayne cache was placed. The Riverside Cement Company owns the land where the new John Wayne - Again cache is placed. I hope they will not be as touchy if people cross their land.

 

So I guess the log (by the victim's uncle) on the original cache stating it was on "PUBLIC land" (their caps) is wrong.

Link to comment

"Heim, who doesn't speak English well, has Spanish-English interpreters to assist him during the trial, which is scheduled to continue today."

 

I see where there can be a commutation issue here.

 

Given his age, the judge may well commute his sentence. :lol:

 

With luck, not. He needs a good, long stint. Hopefully, never to see freedom again. He is lucky he is not facing murder charges.

 

Pssst... that was humor, Baloo.

Link to comment

So I guess the log (by the victim's uncle) on the original cache stating it was on "PUBLIC land" (their caps) is wrong.

 

Earlier I posted the link to the county zoning map - comparing that to the google map on the cache page quickly shows that both John Wayne caches are on private property. That has nothing to do with Mr. Heim's legal responsibility. Nobody could have foreseen his reaction, of course, and ultimately whatever guilt he bears can be sorted out by the court. But the incident need not have happened. I know that it is sometimes hard to determine boundaries in the field, so I hope that this will encourage us all to double check property information if we are not absolutely sure.

 

In any event, the rough position of the original John Wayne cache is around the blue dot on incorporated private property. The new cache is in the white (private unincorporated land) to the right, above the BLM land (striped). The replacement cache is dedicated to the teen who was shot. Perhaps the owner can move it to BLM property.

 

47ee30be-679a-4b99-9f82-462c73ed6a6a.jpg

Edited by geodarts
Link to comment

This is why I'm glad I live in a country where you're not normally allowed to have lethal firearms in your posession. The USA seems to believe that incidents like this are a fair price to pay for the right to have a people-killing device of your own...

 

You let everyone carry lethal weapons, and idiots like this will get hold of one and take a shot at anyone they like. How he can defend shooting at a child, who is running away from him, without being in any danger himself, I'll never know. It could so easily have been fatal for the child (and if the father had a gun in HIS car, he'd likely have come back and killed the old fool then...)

I always have a wry smile when I read this type of comment. If the ownership of guns is so widespread and liberal then why was there only one shooter in this scenario. (and many others) If all the adults were packin' then there would have been a gun battle surely.

 

There were more responsible adults there than irresponsible adults so maybe more responsible people should carry guns.

This makes little sense. If the father and uncle were carrying and were responsible they would have done just what they did, leave the property; not start a gun battle. The argument of having more responsible adults carry guns is often used for a case like Mr. Heim who experienced a robbery on his property in the past. He decided that if more "responsible" adults had guns, he could stop another theft from his property. Seeing someone appear to trespass, he "responsibly" shot at them to avoid being robbed. You ought to think a bit about when it it "responsible" to shoot at another person.

 

I was curious about the property records, so I looked up the San Bernardino County GIS and learned that the Heim Trust does indeed own the land where the original John Wayne cache was placed. The Riverside Cement Company owns the land where the new John Wayne - Again cache is placed. I hope they will not be as touchy if people cross their land.

 

So I guess the log (by the victim's uncle) on the original cache stating it was on "PUBLIC land" (their caps) is wrong.

It's not as if property lines are obvious in this part of the desert. Often there is no fence and no other marking. In addition there are trails crisscrossing the desert, some of which have easements when they cross private property. My understanding is that the cache was part of a series of caches along trail like this. Most of the caches were on BLM land, but the cache owner seemed to be unaware of the sections of trail that crossed private land or were close to the edge of BLM and when the cache was hidden he went off trail it was on private land. Most cache owners are not going to check assessors maps like some in this forum do. If this is a trail they have hiked many times they might just assume that it's OK to place a cache here. Perhaps this case does show the need to be more aware of who the property owner is where you place a cache. But still when a cache is placed on private land without permission, 99.9% of the time the worse that is going to happen is that a cacher will be asked to leave and the cache archived so no one else will trespass.

Link to comment
Okay girls, let's try to get along. If someone wants to get a gun, they'll get it regardless of the country they live in or where they're from. I live in Canada too, but the shootings that happen daily in any of our larger cities are testament to the fact that illegal firearms, somehow, are available to those that want them. Any city, anyplace in the world. Very sad.

The difference is how easy you make it for people to get a gun. Make it harder, and fewer people will have guns. Fewer people with guns means a lower chance to get shot at while geocaching (or whatever other activity). It's a simple equation really.

The difference is how easy you make it for people to legally own a car. Make it harder, and fewer people will own cars. Fewer people with cars means a lower chance of being involved in an automobile accident while geocaching (or whatever other activity). It's a simple equation really.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Link to comment

This is why I'm glad I live in a country where you're not normally allowed to have lethal firearms in your posession. The USA seems to believe that incidents like this are a fair price to pay for the right to have a people-killing device of your own...

 

You let everyone carry lethal weapons, and idiots like this will get hold of one and take a shot at anyone they like. How he can defend shooting at a child, who is running away from him, without being in any danger himself, I'll never know. It could so easily have been fatal for the child (and if the father had a gun in HIS car, he'd likely have come back and killed the old fool then...)

I always have a wry smile when I read this type of comment. If the ownership of guns is so widespread and liberal then why was there only one shooter in this scenario. (and many others) If all the adults were packin' then there would have been a gun battle surely.

 

There were more responsible adults there than irresponsible adults so maybe more responsible people should carry guns.

This makes little sense. If the father and uncle were carrying and were responsible they would have done just what they did, leave the property; not start a gun battle. The argument of having more responsible adults carry guns is often used for a case like Mr. Heim who experienced a robbery on his property in the past. He decided that if more "responsible" adults had guns, he could stop another theft from his property. Seeing someone appear to trespass, he "responsibly" shot at them to avoid being robbed. You ought to think a bit about when it it "responsible" to shoot at another person.

I don't need to think about it much. My comment was tongue in cheek in relation to the comment that liberal gun laws allow this sort of thing to happen.

Link to comment

 

It's not as if property lines are obvious in this part of the desert.

 

Which is why we need to be careful. In this case, the lines were quickly seen with a single click on google maps, which included the parcel boundaries. That sparked my curiousity so I took a few minutes to look at the county zoning maps. But I agree that boundaries are hard to determine in the field and that a shooting was completely unforeseeable. If Mr. Heim is found guilty, the responsibility is his alone.

 

The second placement raised more questions, because after the shooting I would have triple checked the location, and any other location where there may be similar problems. Unfortunately, Mr Heim is not the only person with a gun and a degree of paranoia who gravitates towards rural properties. I used to have a neighbor like that . . . .

Edited by geodarts
Link to comment
Okay girls, let's try to get along. If someone wants to get a gun, they'll get it regardless of the country they live in or where they're from. I live in Canada too, but the shootings that happen daily in any of our larger cities are testament to the fact that illegal firearms, somehow, are available to those that want them. Any city, anyplace in the world. Very sad.

The difference is how easy you make it for people to get a gun. Make it harder, and fewer people will have guns. Fewer people with guns means a lower chance to get shot at while geocaching (or whatever other activity). It's a simple equation really.

 

Sure, if simple = stupid.

 

Your equation works in criminals favor. That's the simplicity in it. Make it harder for law abiding citizens to own guns, and the criminals will have all the guns. Don't try to punish the normal folks for the actions of a moron.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

All semantics and details aside, the shooter is screwed. First, he's in CA. There couldn't be a worse place for you to be a gun owner, except maybe New Jersey. Second, the people were retreating. That's a basic no-no in ANY city, state, whatever, often even if they ARE armed.

 

I'm a big advocate for gun ownership. People deserve the right to protect themselves, as the police and the government have no legal obligation to do it for them. But with privilege comes great responsibility, and if you're not up for exercising the responsibility part, you'd best not exercise the privilege part. Or stuff like this happens, and you wind up in jail, deservedly.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Okay girls, let's try to get along. If someone wants to get a gun, they'll get it regardless of the country they live in or where they're from. I live in Canada too, but the shootings that happen daily in any of our larger cities are testament to the fact that illegal firearms, somehow, are available to those that want them. Any city, anyplace in the world. Very sad.

The difference is how easy you make it for people to get a gun. Make it harder, and fewer people will have guns. Fewer people with guns means a lower chance to get shot at while geocaching (or whatever other activity). It's a simple equation really.

 

Sure, if simple = stupid.

 

Your equation works in criminals favor. That's the simplicity in it. Make it harder for law abiding citizens to own guns, and the criminals will have all the guns. Don't try to punish the normal folks for the actions of a moron.

And you sir are correct. What if geocachers were punished every time a listed cache became a bomb scare? That may sound silly, but it happens.

Link to comment

All semantics and details aside, the shooter is screwed. First, he's in CA. There couldn't be a worse place for you to be a gun owner, except maybe New Jersey. Second, the people were retreating. That's a basic no-no in ANY city, state, whatever, often even if they ARE armed.

 

I'm a big advocate for gun ownership. People deserve the right to protect themselves, as the police and the government have no legal obligation to do it for them. But with privilege comes great responsibility, and if you're not up for exercising the responsibility part, you'd best not exercise the privilege part. Or stuff like this happens, and you wind up in jail, deservedly.

 

I don't think CA has anything to do with this case. The shooter acted to say the very least illresponsible. At what point according to the story was he directly or indirectly threatened by the cachers which warranted the use of deadly force?Trespassing is not grounds for being shot or shot at. The fact he was threatened or rob in a previous case has no bearing on this incident. As I would expect in any state, the shooter will have to justify his intent to use deadly force. If the facts are accurate and present, he does not have a reason to use deadly force in this incident. He should pay the price for acting recklessly with a firearm.

Link to comment

This is why I'm glad I live in a country where you're not normally allowed to have lethal firearms in your posession. The USA seems to believe that incidents like this are a fair price to pay for the right to have a people-killing device of your own...

 

You let everyone carry lethal weapons, and idiots like this will get hold of one and take a shot at anyone they like. How he can defend shooting at a child, who is running away from him, without being in any danger himself, I'll never know. It could so easily have been fatal for the child (and if the father had a gun in HIS car, he'd likely have come back and killed the old fool then...)

I am assuming this is just a poorly worded post as sometimes happens on the internet rather than some staggeringly ignorant and provincial view of a country foreign to the poster. If you read the comments in the thread the consensus is that the gun owner was wrong and if found guilty, should be jailed.
Link to comment

It's not as if property lines are obvious in this part of the desert. Often there is no fence and no other marking. In addition there are trails crisscrossing the desert, some of which have easements when they cross private property. My understanding is that the cache was part of a series of caches along trail like this. Most of the caches were on BLM land, but the cache owner seemed to be unaware of the sections of trail that crossed private land or were close to the edge of BLM and when the cache was hidden he went off trail it was on private land. Most cache owners are not going to check assessors maps like some in this forum do. If this is a trail they have hiked many times they might just assume that it's OK to place a cache here. Perhaps this case does show the need to be more aware of who the property owner is where you place a cache. But still when a cache is placed on private land without permission, 99.9% of the time the worse that is going to happen is that a cacher will be asked to leave and the cache archived so no one else will trespass.

 

And that's a problem.

 

And as Geodarts pointed out (as have I in the past), all it takes in most cases is a few clicks to get to a town's/county's database of plat maps, to figure out who owns a piece of property (sometimes a visit to the clerk's office may be required). It is not too much to ask for cache owners to do a little due diligence before hiding a cache. A lot of problems can be avoided with 10-15 minutes of research.

 

(And again to be clear, none of this excuses the behavior of the landowner)

 

(Edit for grammar)

Edited by BBWolf+3Pigs
Link to comment
Okay girls, let's try to get along. If someone wants to get a gun, they'll get it regardless of the country they live in or where they're from. I live in Canada too, but the shootings that happen daily in any of our larger cities are testament to the fact that illegal firearms, somehow, are available to those that want them. Any city, anyplace in the world. Very sad.

The difference is how easy you make it for people to get a gun. Make it harder, and fewer people will have guns. Fewer people with guns means a lower chance to get shot at while geocaching (or whatever other activity). It's a simple equation really.

The difference is how easy you make it for people to legally own a car. Make it harder, and fewer people will own cars. Fewer people with cars means a lower chance of being involved in an automobile accident while geocaching (or whatever other activity). It's a simple equation really.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

what a poor comparison...for the vast majority the car is a necessity, gets them to work etc...what is the necessity of carrying a gun?

Link to comment
Okay girls, let's try to get along. If someone wants to get a gun, they'll get it regardless of the country they live in or where they're from. I live in Canada too, but the shootings that happen daily in any of our larger cities are testament to the fact that illegal firearms, somehow, are available to those that want them. Any city, anyplace in the world. Very sad.

The difference is how easy you make it for people to get a gun. Make it harder, and fewer people will have guns. Fewer people with guns means a lower chance to get shot at while geocaching (or whatever other activity). It's a simple equation really.

The difference is how easy you make it for people to legally own a car. Make it harder, and fewer people will own cars. Fewer people with cars means a lower chance of being involved in an automobile accident while geocaching (or whatever other activity). It's a simple equation really.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

what a poor comparison...for the vast majority the car is a necessity, gets them to work etc...what is the necessity of carrying a gun?

 

Well the same is true for cars and any other type of inanimate object that could be used to harm another...if used improperly or illegally.

 

[edited to stay somewhat on topic before I get smacked. :) ]

 

The owner of the cache probably made an honest mistake. Most of us (I think) do a good faith effort on determining whether a cache could be considered private property when we're in the woods or desert. Sometimes we don't have convenient maps, fences or "no trespassing signs" to go by when we're hunting or placing. I highly doubt that many of us take the time to troop to the county clerks office if there is any doubt. Still, in this particular case, the geocachers were unaware, they tried to leave peacefully and were still shot at. We need to be careful every time we're out there because we never know what we're dealing with.

 

The person who supposedly owned this property used his weapon irreponsibly no matter which way you look at it and I'm fairly confidant that he will pay for his stupidity. Thank heavens the boy is ok.

Edited by wildchld97
Link to comment

"Heim, who doesn't speak English well, has Spanish-English interpreters to assist him during the trial, which is scheduled to continue today."

 

I see where there can be a commutation issue here.

 

Given his age, the judge may well commute his sentence. :lol:

 

With luck, not. He needs a good, long stint. Hopefully, never to see freedom again. He is lucky he is not facing murder charges.

 

Pssst... that was humor, Baloo.

 

Which I knew (coming from you), however as you can see, some agree that there should be some consideration in a lighter sentence due to his age for attempting to kill someone.

 

Whether or not they were trespassing is something that CO's and cachers need to take into account, however even when we don't, or an honest mistake is made, the worst consequence should be a legal matter, not this. Even in the case of the robbery/burglary, deadly force is used to protect life, not property. If anything, his age should have prevented this due to experience and that should be taken into account.

Edited by baloo&bd
Link to comment

"Heim, who doesn't speak English well, has Spanish-English interpreters to assist him during the trial, which is scheduled to continue today."

 

I see where there can be a commutation issue here.

 

Given his age, the judge may well commute his sentence. :lol:

 

With luck, not. He needs a good, long stint. Hopefully, never to see freedom again. He is lucky he is not facing murder charges.

 

Pssst... that was humor, Baloo.

 

Which I knew (coming from you), however as you can see, some agree that there should be some consideration in a lighter sentence due to his age for attempting to kill someone.

 

Whether or not they were trespassing is something that CO's and cachers need to take into account, however even when we don't, or an honest mistake is made, the worst consequence should be a legal matter, not this. Even in the case of the robbery/burglary, deadly force is used to protect life, not property. If anything, his age should have prevented this due to experience and that should be taken into account.

+1 and that as an senior citizen who owns open property in the high desert that is trespassed on all the time. But don't try and break into my home.

Link to comment

I highly doubt that many of us take the time to troop to the county clerks office if there is any doubt.

 

But we should take the time. And in 95% of the cases, you don't even have to go to the clerk's office. In Rhode Island, almost every town has the tax maps/tax rolls on line. Some as PDFs of the plat maps, and others with a full-up GIS system. A handful of clicks, and I can tell you who owns a piece of property, and probably hwat their tax liability is. Hardest part is usually figuring out which town I need to search.

Link to comment

I highly doubt that many of us take the time to troop to the county clerks office if there is any doubt.

 

But we should take the time. And in 95% of the cases, you don't even have to go to the clerk's office. In Rhode Island, almost every town has the tax maps/tax rolls on line. Some as PDFs of the plat maps, and others with a full-up GIS system. A handful of clicks, and I can tell you who owns a piece of property, and probably hwat their tax liability is. Hardest part is usually figuring out which town I need to search.

 

I think my question would probably be why should *I* go through all that trouble? The landowner has the responsibility of marking their territory. Otherwise, people are going to end up straying where they don't belong.

 

Here's where I have a problem with landowners in general. I hike a lot. Most of the time I'm pretty good about staying on the trail, but there are times when I've strayed away for one reason or another. Or..if I'm driving down a dirt road...I'll keep driving until it says "do not enter". If I've run into an area that is marked as private property, I respect the boundaries. If it is NOT clearly marked..I keep going. I'd have a big problem with some yahoo running after me with a gun on unmarked property...or property that they "claim" that they own but don't.

 

Realistically, I can't see hikers and geocachers googling property lines on a regular basis.

Edited by wildchld97
Link to comment

I highly doubt that many of us take the time to troop to the county clerks office if there is any doubt.

 

But we should take the time. And in 95% of the cases, you don't even have to go to the clerk's office. In Rhode Island, almost every town has the tax maps/tax rolls on line. Some as PDFs of the plat maps, and others with a full-up GIS system. A handful of clicks, and I can tell you who owns a piece of property, and probably hwat their tax liability is. Hardest part is usually figuring out which town I need to search.

 

I think my question would probably be why should *I* go through all that trouble? The landowner has the responsibility of marking their territory. Otherwise, people are going to end up straying where they don't belong.

 

Here's where I have a problem with landowners in general. I hike a lot. Most of the time I'm pretty good about staying on the trail, but there are times when I've strayed away for one reason or another. Or..if I'm driving down a dirt road...I'll keep driving until it says "do not enter". If I've run into an area that is marked as private property, I respect the boundaries. If it is NOT clearly marked..I keep going. I'd have a big problem with some yahoo running after me with a gun on unmarked property...or property that they "claim" that they own but don't.

 

Realistically, I can't see hikers and geocachers googling property lines on a regular basis.

 

Out of respect for your fellow cachers.

Link to comment

So I guess the log (by the victim's uncle) on the original cache stating it was on "PUBLIC land" (their caps) is wrong.

 

Earlier I posted the link to the county zoning map - comparing that to the google map on the cache page quickly shows that both John Wayne caches are on private property. That has nothing to do with Mr. Heim's legal responsibility. Nobody could have foreseen his reaction, of course, and ultimately whatever guilt he bears can be sorted out by the court. But the incident need not have happened. I know that it is sometimes hard to determine boundaries in the field, so I hope that this will encourage us all to double check property information if we are not absolutely sure.

 

In any event, the rough position of the original John Wayne cache is around the blue dot on incorporated private property. The new cache is in the white (private unincorporated land) to the right, above the BLM land (striped). The replacement cache is dedicated to the teen who was shot. Perhaps the owner can move it to BLM property.

 

47ee30be-679a-4b99-9f82-462c73ed6a6a.jpg

 

I did the same thing and I got a similar result, just slight smidge south of your dot. (I was using Fern Way as a guide.)

 

EDITED TO ADD: I had not checked the location of the new cache when I posted this. I just checked it and I also concur that the new cache is located on private unincorporated land.

Edited by Ecylram
Link to comment

I highly doubt that many of us take the time to troop to the county clerks office if there is any doubt.

 

But we should take the time. And in 95% of the cases, you don't even have to go to the clerk's office. In Rhode Island, almost every town has the tax maps/tax rolls on line. Some as PDFs of the plat maps, and others with a full-up GIS system. A handful of clicks, and I can tell you who owns a piece of property, and probably hwat their tax liability is. Hardest part is usually figuring out which town I need to search.

 

I think my question would probably be why should *I* go through all that trouble? The landowner has the responsibility of marking their territory. Otherwise, people are going to end up straying where they don't belong.

 

As a cache hider, you should (must in my opinion) go through the trouble, since you are the person who is placing something out there on someone's property, for others to go find. As a hider you're the one saying "everything is okey-dokey on this, come and find it". As a hider you're the one who checks the box saying you have adequate permisison from the landowner or land manager for the hide.

Link to comment

Have the geocachers been charged for trespassing?

 

It would not happen. "Trespass to land" is fairly detailed in California (and takes into consideration the type of land, the actions taken by the trespasser, and whether the land is posted or fenced), but the short answer is that since the land was unfenced or not posted, and the cachers did not refuse to leave, they would not be criminally liable. IPC 602, 602.8)

Edited by geodarts
Link to comment

Have the geocachers been charged for trespassing?

 

I don't see why they would be charged. Based on reports...the area is unmarked, the cachers did not know it was private property and they immediately retreated when confronted. You generally don't see charges under those circumstances.

 

Pulled from a website discussing California tresspassing law:

 

"Specific intent" is a particular mental state. When you act with specific intent, it means that you not only intend your act, but that you also specifically intend the consequences of your act.10

 

Example: While you hiking in the hills, you stop to rest. Despite the fact that there are no signs, no home, and no people, you are actually on someone else's private property. Given these facts, you aren't willfully entering another person's land or intending to interfere with any property rights.

Link to comment

Just this whole event made me wonder. I always use caution where I take my family geocaching or hiking, I don't want to be in the wrong place at the wrong time like these people were. I know how Trials are and it's normally try and blame the victim to make the guilty seem their actions were reasonable. In this case the property owner is just plain wrong, and that is something that we should consider before seeking a geocache. Here are some of my home State trespass laws. Note the sign on the web page, those are very common, and may not be a joke.

http://virginiacriminallawyers.vatrafficlaw.com/pages/trespass.html

Link to comment

I highly doubt that many of us take the time to troop to the county clerks office if there is any doubt.

 

But we should take the time. And in 95% of the cases, you don't even have to go to the clerk's office. In Rhode Island, almost every town has the tax maps/tax rolls on line. Some as PDFs of the plat maps, and others with a full-up GIS system. A handful of clicks, and I can tell you who owns a piece of property, and probably hwat their tax liability is. Hardest part is usually figuring out which town I need to search.

 

I think my question would probably be why should *I* go through all that trouble? The landowner has the responsibility of marking their territory. Otherwise, people are going to end up straying where they don't belong.

 

As a cache hider, you should (must in my opinion) go through the trouble, since you are the person who is placing something out there on someone's property, for others to go find. As a hider you're the one saying "everything is okey-dokey on this, come and find it". As a hider you're the one who checks the box saying you have adequate permisison from the landowner or land manager for the hide.

 

Look, I'm talking about areas where a person would not normally pause and wonder if this might be private property. What I'm talking about are wilderness areas that border private property but not clearly marked.

 

As for marking the box saying that I have "adequate permission". Does everyone have documented proof that their business parking lot hide, guardrail cache, railroad hide, and tot lot hide has this permission? Or are they just "saying" that they have permission?

Link to comment

Just this whole event made me wonder. I always use caution where I take my family geocaching or hiking, I don't want to be in the wrong place at the wrong time like these people were. I know how Trials are and it's normally try and blame the victim to make the guilty seem their actions were reasonable. In this case the property owner is just plain wrong, and that is something that we should consider before seeking a geocache. Here are some of my home State trespass laws. Note the sign on the web page, those are very common, and may not be a joke.

http://virginiacriminallawyers.vatrafficlaw.com/pages/trespass.html

 

That's exactly the point that I was trying to make.

 

In part, the law states "The issue in many trespassing cases is twofold: has proper notice been provided that the person is not welcome in a particular area and exactly what area is the person prohibited from entering."

 

If it's not marked..you're not technically trespassing...and you certainly can't go around shooting people because they are walking on land that you claim as your own. The burden of proof should be on the landowner in areas where a person could accidentally tread on their land without knowing it. If I'm in the state gamelands and whoops..I placed a cache 50 feet onto private land...how am I supposed to know?

Link to comment

If it's not marked..you're not technically trespassing...and you certainly can't go around shooting people because they are walking on land that you claim as your own. The burden of proof should be on the landowner in areas where a person could accidentally tread on their land without knowing it. If I'm in the state gamelands and whoops..I placed a cache 50 feet onto private land...how am I supposed to know?

 

I live in an area where trails may take you across four or even five different jurisdictions: private property, public land where caching is not permitted, public land where caching is permitted within three feet of a trail, and public land that does not impose any particular restriction on caching. So we have to know. I am very familiar with all the land in question but even then I have occasionally spent a great deal of time figuring it out (or convincing the reviewer that I am right) -- if I am in doubt I will look at several different maps and I err on the side of caution. If I am not sure, I do not submit the cache.

 

It is not always easy because land is not always marked, and does not necessary need to be marked to protect property rights. I can go from land where caching is strictly forbidden to unrestricted land a dozen times without any of it being signed. In some spots (like the caches in this thread), all it really takes is a quick look at the parcel boundaries that google maps often show. In other areas, I have decided to move a cache away from a border so there is no doubt. There are also certain areas that will cause a reviewer to take a close look at a cache -- but they work from a distance and I have seen caches published on restricted land and denied on land that is open to caching.

 

In most cases, if there is unposted or unfenced private land bordering on public areas, it probably is not a major problem - although 50 feet might be different than 1050 feet. Certainly, if there is no fence or posted signs, criminal trespassing would not be an issue until the land owner tells you to leave. But there are other factors. I have looked for caches where the hider placed it just outside of unposted boundaries next to open space -- while the land owner did not appreciate me being there, we worked out an amicable solution. Obviously, we have learned in this incident that this is not always the case.

Edited by geodarts
Link to comment

I can't believe it took me so long to remember something that happened to me. I always try to be careful when caching at night, but it is inherently risky.

 

Here's my log from GC2XQW2:

 

"I was in my car when this one published. On site,25 miles and 45 minutes later I was at the nearby intersection. I saw no signs of any kind and started in the 75 feet to the cache. When I was feet from the cache I hear someone yell, i couldn't understand completely what they said but I believe one of the words was "Gun". I told him I was geocaching and said I thought this was a park, he said it was private property and said I had to leave. I apologized and left and as I was leaving my flashlight glanced over what must have been the cache, but I decided maybe getting shot was not worth putting ink to the log. Thankfully the CO agrees and was kind enough to offer me the find and FTF!!!

 

When I got home, 25 miles and 45 mins later, I looked the cache up on the KC Imap and it does appear that this cache is not on private property. When I got the publish I had read the cache description three times to make sure there were no time restrictions (Thank you for remedying that), I go after many late night FTF's and am quite vigilant about not going where I'm not supposed to. When I got home, I saw the attributes, which I don't have the ability to look at with the program on my phone, which shows its not available 24/7."

 

One of the things I didn't mention in the log was the fact that I'm 99% sure that I heard a shotgun chamber a round after the "neighbor" announced himself. Fun stuff.

Link to comment

Look, I'm talking about areas where a person would not normally pause and wonder if this might be private property. What I'm talking about are wilderness areas that border private property but not clearly marked.

 

As a cache hider, you need to make sure, where ever it may be, that you have permission. Period.

 

As for marking the box saying that I have "adequate permission". Does everyone have documented proof that their business parking lot hide, guardrail cache, railroad hide, and tot lot hide has this permission? Or are they just "saying" that they have permission?

 

I'd wager that the vast majority of people hiding caches in parking lots of malls and shopping centers don't have permission. But unfortunately, there's not much that we can do about it.

 

If it were up to me, I'd disallow any of those caches unless there was explicit written permission.

Link to comment

 

As a cache hider, you need to make sure, where ever it may be, that you have permission. Period.

 

I will do that when everyone else in the entire world complies. Until then, I'll use common sense and personal ethics. By THAT I mean that if it's an area that people commonly visit without explicit permission, then I won't.

 

As for marking the box saying that I have "adequate permission". Does everyone have documented proof that their business parking lot hide, guardrail cache, railroad hide, and tot lot hide has this permission? Or are they just "saying" that they have permission?

 

I'd wager that the vast majority of people hiding caches in parking lots of malls and shopping centers don't have permission. But unfortunately, there's not much that we can do about it.

 

If it were up to me, I'd disallow any of those caches unless there was explicit written permission.

 

Well, when YOU become a reviewer....I guess the world will be a better place. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
If it's not marked..you're not technically trespassing...and you certainly can't go around shooting people because they are walking on land that you claim as your own. The burden of proof should be on the landowner in areas where a person could accidentally tread on their land without knowing it. If I'm in the state gamelands and whoops..I placed a cache 50 feet onto private land...how am I supposed to know?

 

I encounter alot of trespassing issues during the State deer season. Landowners are now able to mark their property with paint on trees, but to us that own deer lease property, even if it is clearly marked have to deal with trespassers. The NFS in my area has worked hard the last few years to mark their property. One place that I hunt spring gobblers that WE thought was NFS property was over a 1/2 mile off according to new markings, but maps show different? So no matter which outdoor sport we choose, be aware of your location as best you can.

Link to comment
If it's not marked..you're not technically trespassing...and you certainly can't go around shooting people because they are walking on land that you claim as your own. The burden of proof should be on the landowner in areas where a person could accidentally tread on their land without knowing it. If I'm in the state gamelands and whoops..I placed a cache 50 feet onto private land...how am I supposed to know?

 

I encounter alot of trespassing issues during the State deer season. Landowners are now able to mark their property with paint on trees, but to us that own deer lease property, even if it is clearly marked have to deal with trespassers. The NFS in my area has worked hard the last few years to mark their property. One place that I hunt spring gobblers that WE thought was NFS property was over a 1/2 mile off according to new markings, but maps show different? So no matter which outdoor sport we choose, be aware of your location as best you can.

 

Well there ya go. I have a lot of hunters that technically tresspass on my land. Am I walking around shooting at them willy nilly? No. Some aren't aware that they are on my land because I can't mark every mother loving tree. That's cool. I don't shoot..I warn first...and I'm easily bribed if you bring gifts.

  • Funny 1
Link to comment
If it's not marked..you're not technically trespassing...and you certainly can't go around shooting people because they are walking on land that you claim as your own. The burden of proof should be on the landowner in areas where a person could accidentally tread on their land without knowing it. If I'm in the state gamelands and whoops..I placed a cache 50 feet onto private land...how am I supposed to know?

 

I encounter alot of trespassing issues during the State deer season. Landowners are now able to mark their property with paint on trees, but to us that own deer lease property, even if it is clearly marked have to deal with trespassers. The NFS in my area has worked hard the last few years to mark their property. One place that I hunt spring gobblers that WE thought was NFS property was over a 1/2 mile off according to new markings, but maps show different? So no matter which outdoor sport we choose, be aware of your location as best you can.

 

Well there ya go. I have a lot of hunters that technically tresspass on my land. Am I walking around shooting at them willy nilly? No. Some aren't aware that they are on my land because I can't mark every mother loving tree. That's cool. I don't shoot..I warn first...and I'm easily bribed if you bring gifts.

I'm all for the gifts part. I still use the nice climbing tree stand that someone left chained to a tree on my posted property a few years ago. :lol: Really when you think about it hunting and geocaching have something in common. "Ask first" is something that we teach in hunters education classes.

Link to comment

what a poor comparison...for the vast majority the car is a necessity, gets them to work etc...what is the necessity of carrying a gun?

 

Wrong. This is a very good comparison. Necessity or not, there is nothing in the United States Constitution guaranteeing me the right to a car. There is, however, the guarantee of my right to bear arms.

 

We could go into necessity, but we'd go on for a very long time.

Link to comment

The court minutes are not particularly well written, but the case went to the jury, beginning full deliberations yesterday morning around 8:30 am. The verdict was returned around 4 pm. It appears that Mr Heim was found guilty of the charged offense (assault with firearm) and special allegations (enhancements).

 

The court will have a number of sentencing options. From what I remember he could face up to 25 years -- although I would be very surprised if he received the upper terms, given his age it could amount to a life sentence in any event. A hearing will be held later after the probation department issues a report with its recommendations.

 

------------

 

It seems to have been a careful jury, asking three questions during their deliberations. They were out a fairly long time for this kind of case. I have seen capital cases with far shorter deliberations. But I don't think there were any winners here since the events were unfortunate for all concerned.

Edited by geodarts
Link to comment

what a poor comparison...for the vast majority the car is a necessity, gets them to work etc...what is the necessity of carrying a gun?

 

Wrong. This is a very good comparison. Necessity or not, there is nothing in the United States Constitution guaranteeing me the right to a car. There is, however, the guarantee of my right to bear arms.

 

We could go into necessity, but we'd go on for a very long time.

Just a few years ago, my wife and I had a great road trip to Nashville and Memphis to see the Grand Ole Opry and Graceland, where "The King" used to live. While touring, we ate well and really enjoyed the BBQ ribs. Dining at a popular chain in Memphis, I noticed one of the restaurant staff had a handgun on his waist. Being from Canada, it's something I don't see all the time. And, being a large family style eatery loaded with families, I politely asked why he felt the need to wear a gun. His answer was short, "I have a right to bear arms" he said.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

The court minutes are not particularly well written, but it appears that the case went to the jury, beginning full deliberations yesterday morning around 8:30 am. The verdict was returned around 4 pm, finding Mr Heim guilty of the charged offense (assault with firearm) and special allegations (enhancements).

 

The court will have a number of sentencing options. Ffrom what I remember he could face up to 25 years -- although I would be surprised if he received the upper terms. A hearing will be held later after the probation department issues a report with its recommendations.

 

------------

 

It seems to have been a careful jury, asking three questions during their deliberations. They were out a fairly long time for this kind of case. I have seen capital cases with far shorter deliberations. But I don't think there were any winners here since the events were unfortunate for all concerned.

 

Thanks for the updated information. Based on the public court records the defendend, who is 71, turned down a plea bargain of 10 years and chose to go to trial. The defendent has been in jail since the incident as he was unable to make the $150,000 bail.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...