Another Stupid Bomb Squad Story

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

Sure, he can press charges, but he knows that it would be a waste of his time because it would never go beyond that. It would be immediately obvious that this was not a "fake bomb" and that there was no intent to make it appear that way. If the DA wasn't smart enough to throw it out, surely the judge would never let it get far enough to be any more than a minor inconvenience to the cache owner. That statement was nothing but public face-saving.

 

You're probably right on intent from a criminal law standpoint. However, charges arising from violating civil law do not always require intent, and they can carry civil liability which in this instance can be much more than a minor inconvenience.

[+dprovan]

Well, actually I think it's more like, "I want to alert any dumbass that we take fake bombs very seriously." While he may or may not be threatening geocachers to be more careful, I think his main goal here is to discourage anyone else thinking it sounds like fun to get the bomb squaud called out from doing it on purpose.

Sure, he can press charges, but he knows that it would be a waste of his time because it would never go beyond that. It would be immediately obvious that this was not a "fake bomb" and that there was no intent to make it appear that way. If the DA wasn't smart enough to throw it out, surely the judge would never let it get far enough to be any more than a minor inconvenience to the cache owner. That statement was nothing but public face-saving.

I assume you meant to quote only the post that I quoted, and not mine. But if I wasn't clear, I was saying that he was specifically addressing people that might make something that was in fact a fake bomb, so the charges would be perfectly legitimate. Not face saving at all, just nothing to do with geocaching because he's looking at the bigger picture.

[Clan Riffster]

why does it usually take six hours to blow it up?

 

It's called bureaucracy.

Bureaucracy & logistics.

It takes time to dot the "T"s and cross the "I"s. And it takes time to get the area cleared. And it takes time to get the EOD techs on site. And it takes time to get the equipment on site. Most municipalities don't have full time EOD guys.

The team is usually made up of officers who are either on duty and need to get relieved, or are at home and need to get dressed, drive to the EOD bunker, hook up the EOD trailer, and drive to the site. Then they evaluate. They they act.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

More bomb paranoia.

My standard answer :

 

In the U.S. you have a greater chance of an airplane falling on you from out of the sky than being killed by a bomb....fact.

[knowschad]

Sure, he can press charges, but he knows that it would be a waste of his time because it would never go beyond that. It would be immediately obvious that this was not a "fake bomb" and that there was no intent to make it appear that way. If the DA wasn't smart enough to throw it out, surely the judge would never let it get far enough to be any more than a minor inconvenience to the cache owner. That statement was nothing but public face-saving.

 

You're probably right on intent from a criminal law standpoint. However, charges arising from violating civil law do not always require intent, and they can carry civil liability which in this instance can be much more than a minor inconvenience.

What would be the civil law that was broken in this case? Yeah, I suppose they could always slap him with a catch-all like disturbing the peace, but even a jr. public defender would get that one tossed out. It would be laughable in this situation.

[4wheelin_fool]

They hid a suspicious looking device in a public area in which several geocachers indicated that it resembled a bomb. If they wanted associated monetary compensation for disarming it, the possibility is definitely there.

[+Don_J]

Sure, he can press charges, but he knows that it would be a waste of his time because it would never go beyond that. It would be immediately obvious that this was not a "fake bomb" and that there was no intent to make it appear that way. If the DA wasn't smart enough to throw it out, surely the judge would never let it get far enough to be any more than a minor inconvenience to the cache owner. That statement was nothing but public face-saving.

 

You're probably right on intent from a criminal law standpoint. However, charges arising from violating civil law do not always require intent, and they can carry civil liability which in this instance can be much more than a minor inconvenience.

What would be the civil law that was broken in this case? Yeah, I suppose they could always slap him with a catch-all like disturbing the peace, but even a jr. public defender would get that one tossed out. It would be laughable in this situation.

 

I'm confused by the terms that are being used. I'm not a lawyer and I have never slept in a Holiday Inn Express, but it is my understanding that in the US, civil law deals with relations between individuals or organizations. Disturbing the peace is a criminal act.

 

As far as a fake bomb. Stupidity is not a criminal offense. If the intent was to disrupt people and commerce by planting a realistic looking bomb, (whatever that looks like), then I'm sure they would be guilty of a crime, much the same as calling in a bomb threat to the local airport. If I dump my old sprinkler pipes on the side of the road and someone thinks one of the pipes looks like a bomb, regardless of the actions of the police and bomb squad, I'm guilty of illegal dumping, not making a bomb threat.

 

Now, if someone felt that their business was damaged because what happened after I dumped my pipes, they can use civil law to try to recoup their damages. I think the most interesting aspect is that these stories die quickly and we never see a followup. I would like to see a judge or jury decide who is responsible for civil damages. Who caused the damages? Me for leaving what I believe to be a harmless looking object in the bushes at Walmart, or the authorities for the way that they reacted to that object. If it is me, then what happens when little Suzy hops on the bus and forgets her backpack on the bus bench? Is her life ruined financially because the police decided they needed to close a major shopping center while they blew up her backpack?

[knowschad]

They hid a suspicious looking device in a public area in which several geocachers indicated that it resembled a bomb. If they wanted associated monetary compensation for disarming it, the possibility is definitely there.

 

Are those geocachers recognized bomb experts?

[knowschad]

Sure, he can press charges, but he knows that it would be a waste of his time because it would never go beyond that. It would be immediately obvious that this was not a "fake bomb" and that there was no intent to make it appear that way. If the DA wasn't smart enough to throw it out, surely the judge would never let it get far enough to be any more than a minor inconvenience to the cache owner. That statement was nothing but public face-saving.

 

You're probably right on intent from a criminal law standpoint. However, charges arising from violating civil law do not always require intent, and they can carry civil liability which in this instance can be much more than a minor inconvenience.

What would be the civil law that was broken in this case? Yeah, I suppose they could always slap him with a catch-all like disturbing the peace, but even a jr. public defender would get that one tossed out. It would be laughable in this situation.

 

I'm confused by the terms that are being used. I'm not a lawyer and I have never slept in a Holiday Inn Express, but it is my understanding that in the US, civil law deals with relations between individuals or organizations. Disturbing the peace is a criminal act.

 

Yes it is. Sorry, I worded that awkwardly, I guess.

[4wheelin_fool]

They hid a suspicious looking device in a public area in which several geocachers indicated that it resembled a bomb. If they wanted associated monetary compensation for disarming it, the possibility is definitely there.

 

Are those geocachers recognized bomb experts?

 

Is the person that reported it to the police, a recognized bomb expert?

 

If something appears to be a bomb by the average person, the intent may not be malicious, but rather negligent. In a civil trial the parameters for assigning monetary damages is much lower than a criminal trial. Causing undue alarm accidentally, but with several warnings from others, would not be criminal, but the person still may be held liable for damages.

 

If you kill someone on purpose you may be held on criminal charges, but in a car accident you can be held for monetary damages through negligence rather than intent.

[Clan Riffster]

Is the person that reported it to the police, a recognized bomb expert?

Another question to ponder:

Is the initial responding officer a recognized bomb expert?

I'm not, and I've been a LEO since '82.

[knowschad]

They hid a suspicious looking device in a public area in which several geocachers indicated that it resembled a bomb. If they wanted associated monetary compensation for disarming it, the possibility is definitely there.

 

Are those geocachers recognized bomb experts?

 

Is the person that reported it to the police, a recognized bomb expert?

 

If something appears to be a bomb by the average person, the intent may not be malicious, but rather negligent. In a civil trial the parameters for assigning monetary damages is much lower than a criminal trial. Causing undue alarm accidentally, but with several warnings from others, would not be criminal, but the person still may be held liable for damages.

 

If you kill someone on purpose you may be held on criminal charges, but in a car accident you can be held for monetary damages through negligence rather than intent.

 

Responding to a call that somebody found something that they said looks like a bomb, and bringing charges against somebody because several geocachers indicated that it resembled a bomb are completely unrelated. The bomb squad doesn't ask if the person in scenario #1 is a bomb expert before responding. The court should surely ask if the geocachers in scenario #2 were bomb experts, though before giving credence to their claims that it looked like a bomb. Have they ever even seen a bomb before? I doubt it.

[4wheelin_fool]

They hid a suspicious looking device in a public area in which several geocachers indicated that it resembled a bomb. If they wanted associated monetary compensation for disarming it, the possibility is definitely there.

 

Are those geocachers recognized bomb experts?

 

Is the person that reported it to the police, a recognized bomb expert?

 

If something appears to be a bomb by the average person, the intent may not be malicious, but rather negligent. In a civil trial the parameters for assigning monetary damages is much lower than a criminal trial. Causing undue alarm accidentally, but with several warnings from others, would not be criminal, but the person still may be held liable for damages.

 

If you kill someone on purpose you may be held on criminal charges, but in a car accident you can be held for monetary damages through negligence rather than intent.

 

Responding to a call that somebody found something that they said looks like a bomb, and bringing charges against somebody because several geocachers indicated that it resembled a bomb are completely unrelated. The bomb squad doesn't ask if the person in scenario #1 is a bomb expert before responding. The court should surely ask if the geocachers in scenario #2 were bomb experts, though before giving credence to their claims that it looked like a bomb. Have they ever even seen a bomb before? I doubt it.

 

If the county attempted to recoop their losses in a civil suit by saying the geocache caused undue alarm, it would have to be demonstrated that the cacher was negligent in leaving a device that a reasonable person could view as a bomb. A muggle called it in because they thought it was suspicious. The responding officer called in the experts because he thought it was suspicious. Three geocachers logged that it looked like a bomb. Causing public distress would be an object that the average person would be disturbed by, not an expert. If it was a lock n lock, it would be difficult to prove, a deactivated hand grenade would be easy. This was a pipe covered in duct tape that at least 5 people thought was suspicious before the bomb squad arrived. If you wish to test the law, you can leave a pipe wrapped in duct tape on the steps of your local courthouse with your name and phone number inside and see what happens.

[knowschad]

They hid a suspicious looking device in a public area in which several geocachers indicated that it resembled a bomb. If they wanted associated monetary compensation for disarming it, the possibility is definitely there.

 

Are those geocachers recognized bomb experts?

 

Is the person that reported it to the police, a recognized bomb expert?

 

If something appears to be a bomb by the average person, the intent may not be malicious, but rather negligent. In a civil trial the parameters for assigning monetary damages is much lower than a criminal trial. Causing undue alarm accidentally, but with several warnings from others, would not be criminal, but the person still may be held liable for damages.

 

If you kill someone on purpose you may be held on criminal charges, but in a car accident you can be held for monetary damages through negligence rather than intent.

 

Responding to a call that somebody found something that they said looks like a bomb, and bringing charges against somebody because several geocachers indicated that it resembled a bomb are completely unrelated. The bomb squad doesn't ask if the person in scenario #1 is a bomb expert before responding. The court should surely ask if the geocachers in scenario #2 were bomb experts, though before giving credence to their claims that it looked like a bomb. Have they ever even seen a bomb before? I doubt it.

 

If the county attempted to recoop their losses in a civil suit by saying the geocache caused undue alarm, it would have to be demonstrated that the cacher was negligent in leaving a device that a reasonable person could view as a bomb. A muggle called it in because they thought it was suspicious. The responding officer called in the experts because he thought it was suspicious. Three geocachers logged that it looked like a bomb. Causing public distress would be an object that the average person would be disturbed by, not an expert. If it was a lock n lock, it would be difficult to prove, a deactivated hand grenade would be easy. This was a pipe covered in duct tape that at least 5 people thought was suspicious before the bomb squad arrived. If you wish to test the law, you can leave a pipe wrapped in duct tape on the steps of your local courthouse with your name and phone number inside and see what happens.

 

ok. You win.

[4wheelin_fool]

 

ok. You win.

 

There are no winners when someone calls a cache in, and there are plenty of containers out there which are ripe for police activity. A clear nalgene water bottle stuffed into the end of the guardrail may seem pretty harmless, but I found one wrapped in silver duct tape. Both ends were not taped, only the body. So the duct tape is for what reason exactly? The average person may think it was nothing, but then someone finds it on the ground obsessively wrapped up and they won't be able to think of what it could be, or why someone would do that. Or a LPC film can or a presciption bottle covered in camo duct tape. Again, why? Perhaps they were going to hide it in the woods and changed their mind, but if a muggle sees that in a populated area, it only makes it look more suspicious, like some teen's rogue science project. A dope dealer may hide things in a film can, but they won't wrap it in any kind of duct tape. I don't think it helps the sport to defend boneheaded ideas and encourage COs to not think or care about the consequences for their actions. The "everyone is stupid except for us geocachers" meme is flawed.

[knowschad]

ok. You win.

 

There are no winners when someone calls a cache in, and there are plenty of containers out there which are ripe for police activity. A clear nalgene water bottle stuffed into the end of the guardrail may seem pretty harmless, but I found one wrapped in silver duct tape. Both ends were not taped, only the body. So the duct tape is for what reason exactly? The average person may think it was nothing, but then someone finds it on the ground obsessively wrapped up and they won't be able to think of what it could be, or why someone would do that. Or a LPC film can or a presciption bottle covered in camo duct tape. Again, why? Perhaps they were going to hide it in the woods and changed their mind, but if a muggle sees that in a populated area, it only makes it look more suspicious, like some teen's rogue science project. A dope dealer may hide things in a film can, but they won't wrap it in any kind of duct tape. I don't think it helps the sport to defend boneheaded ideas and encourage COs to not think or care about the consequences for their actions. The "everyone is stupid except for us geocachers" meme is flawed.

 

All I meant by "you win" was that I wasn't going to continue to argue the point of geocachers being experienced bomb expert witnesses with you. It was a pointless argument.

[+Ambient_Skater]

I'd say that Sgt Beavers is simply trying to save face.

Must have been a

.