Advice: The angry Individual

[Clan Riffster]

 

I'm curious though. If you were washing your car, and a cop pulled up and said, "Hey, stop that.", would you be receptive to that command? In both scenarios, the officer in question would be giving orders, telling free citizens to cease their lawful behavior.

 

With the type of threat the OP mentioned I would immediately contact Law Enforcement to be the mediator. Right or wrong, confrontation is a red flag. I would never suggest the next cacher can deal with it better than the authorities.

It takes two in order to need mediation. If we assume a 30 MPH speed limit, and a 911 call initiated as soon as the jerk on the motorcycle commenced following the cacher, two minutes after hitting the 9 button the jerk was no longer following. Figure a perfect little community with cops at every corner, and you still have a few minutes of response time. Should the cacher turn around and return to the angry, potentially violent nut job, just so the officer can mediate? If we assume that the cacher does wait with the angry dude, what would there be to mediate?

 

Cop: (to cacher) "Sir, did you hunt a geocacher on that guardrail?"

Cacher: "Yes."

Cop: (to angry guy) "Sir, he was telling the truth. He was hunting a cache. Did you confront him and almost threaten him?"

Angry guy: "Dang straight! He must be one of them daggum hippies!"

Cop: (to angry guy) "Did you follow him for a mile and tell him he better watch out?"

Angry guy: "Yer dern tootin' I did! Dang hippies!"

Cop: (to both) "So, is there anything else I can do?"

 

I'm sorry you always have to strut around these boards as if you know all and see all. I hear acting constantly aggressive over small things ages you horribly. You should consider getting help with that.

 

In any situation I've seen, an implied threat such as "you better watch yourself" is followed up with the police saying "Hey, stop that." Especially if this was brought on by a previous engagement where the person acted aggressively for absolutely no reason, and then proceeded to follow you to consider the aggressive harassment.

You have to remember that in the area where Riffster is a law enforcement officer that the angry individual could use deadly force on a cacher who is threatening his guard rail and say he was "standing his ground" and not be guilty of any crime.

Proof that some folks have no idea what they are talking about..

[+K13]

in some jurisdictions, when one chases someone down and verbally assaults them, it is considered a Terrorist Threat - most certainly a criminal offense worthy of calling the authorities.

As for me, when the motorcycle guy got to the point in his verbal assault where he told me that I better watch myself, I would feel threatened. I would then have to make a determination of what level of threat he posed. It may be to just blow it off and drive away. It may be that I felt threatened enough to call 911. If it was at the point where I "was in fear for my life and the life of my child" I would act in a manner to prevent that from ever happening again.

[Clan Riffster]

in some jurisdictions, when one chases someone down and verbally assaults them, it is considered a Terrorist Threat - most certainly a criminal offense worthy of calling the authorities.

In this case, since there was no assault, by any statutory definition, there is no terrorist threat.

[+Dogmeat*]

in some jurisdictions, when one chases someone down and verbally assaults them, it is considered a Terrorist Threat - most certainly a criminal offense worthy of calling the authorities.

In this case, since there was no assault, by any statutory definition, there is no terrorist threat.

 

So what you're saying is it's not a threat unless it's acted upon? If you're in law enforcement, I'd assume you would know the definition of a threat which is "A statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not". Telling someone to watch themselves is indeed an implied threat. Especially with the fact that the man followed them for a mile before making the threat, which shows clearly that the man has a habit of acting irrationally as we've seen earlier when he took a tantrum over a guard rail being used to hide the cache. So we'll go back to that definition where it says "A STATEMENT" not "AN ACTION", therefor meaning it is still considered a threat seeing as the threat has been made and is now apparent. That's how threats work. Would any legal action be taken? No. Would the police talk to the guy? Yes, police that actually do their job would go speak to him.

[+Manville Possum]

The way the OP makes the comment about the man's bike, I suspect there is more to the story. He could have just ignored the angry man, rolled up his window and locked his doors and pulled out when the light changed. Also after being confronted the first time, the OP could have used another route if he felt he and his children were in danger from the angry man. Problem solved, and no police needed.

[+nthacker66]

in some jurisdictions, when one chases someone down and verbally assaults them, it is considered a Terrorist Threat - most certainly a criminal offense worthy of calling the authorities.

In this case, since there was no assault, by any statutory definition, there is no terrorist threat.

 

So what you're saying is it's not a threat unless it's acted upon? If you're in law enforcement, I'd assume you would know the definition of a threat which is "A statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not". Telling someone to watch themselves is indeed an implied threat. Especially with the fact that the man followed them for a mile before making the threat, which shows clearly that the man has a habit of acting irrationally as we've seen earlier when he took a tantrum over a guard rail being used to hide the cache. So we'll go back to that definition where it says "A STATEMENT" not "AN ACTION", therefor meaning it is still considered a threat seeing as the threat has been made and is now apparent. That's how threats work. Would any legal action be taken? No. Would the police talk to the guy? Yes, police that actually do their job would go speak to him.

 

You are not understanding that the court of law (which LEO's have to enforce) cannot legally recognize someone following you for a mile and telling you "you better watch out" as any kind of threat. Even thugh we all know this guy was an aggressive so and so, and yes, threatening - the court of law has to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. LEO's know this and could not just slap the cuffs on him and haul him off.

 

Sadly though, yes, im a state where stand your ground is so easily defendable, i'd be more cautious where you cache and who you deal with.

[+Dogmeat*]

in some jurisdictions, when one chases someone down and verbally assaults them, it is considered a Terrorist Threat - most certainly a criminal offense worthy of calling the authorities.

In this case, since there was no assault, by any statutory definition, there is no terrorist threat.

 

So what you're saying is it's not a threat unless it's acted upon? If you're in law enforcement, I'd assume you would know the definition of a threat which is "A statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not". Telling someone to watch themselves is indeed an implied threat. Especially with the fact that the man followed them for a mile before making the threat, which shows clearly that the man has a habit of acting irrationally as we've seen earlier when he took a tantrum over a guard rail being used to hide the cache. So we'll go back to that definition where it says "A STATEMENT" not "AN ACTION", therefor meaning it is still considered a threat seeing as the threat has been made and is now apparent. That's how threats work. Would any legal action be taken? No. Would the police talk to the guy? Yes, police that actually do their job would go speak to him.

 

You are not understanding that the court of law (which LEO's have to enforce) cannot legally recognize someone following you for a mile and telling you "you better watch out" as any kind of threat. Even thugh we all know this guy was an aggressive so and so, and yes, threatening - the court of law has to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. LEO's know this and could not just slap the cuffs on him and haul him off.

 

Sadly though, yes, im a state where stand your ground is so easily defendable, i'd be more cautious where you cache and who you deal with.

 

Which is why I said no legal action would be taken, but the police would still speak with him.. which also happens to be the question mr law enforcement asked. "Why would the police speak to him?"

[+WarNinjas]

This guy is bothering me more and more the more I read. I think just archive the cache and lets get back to having fun.

[+SwineFlew]

 

I'm curious though. If you were washing your car, and a cop pulled up and said, "Hey, stop that.", would you be receptive to that command? In both scenarios, the officer in question would be giving orders, telling free citizens to cease their lawful behavior.

 

With the type of threat the OP mentioned I would immediately contact Law Enforcement to be the mediator. Right or wrong, confrontation is a red flag. I would never suggest the next cacher can deal with it better than the authorities.

It takes two in order to need mediation. If we assume a 30 MPH speed limit, and a 911 call initiated as soon as the jerk on the motorcycle commenced following the cacher, two minutes after hitting the 9 button the jerk was no longer following. Figure a perfect little community with cops at every corner, and you still have a few minutes of response time. Should the cacher turn around and return to the angry, potentially violent nut job, just so the officer can mediate? If we assume that the cacher does wait with the angry dude, what would there be to mediate?

 

Cop: (to cacher) "Sir, did you hunt a geocacher on that guardrail?"

Cacher: "Yes."

Cop: (to angry guy) "Sir, he was telling the truth. He was hunting a cache. Did you confront him and almost threaten him?"

Angry guy: "Dang straight! He must be one of them daggum hippies!"

Cop: (to angry guy) "Did you follow him for a mile and tell him he better watch out?"

Angry guy: "Yer dern tootin' I did! Dang hippies!"

Cop: (to both) "So, is there anything else I can do?"

 

I'm sorry you always have to strut around these boards as if you know all and see all. I hear acting constantly aggressive over small things ages you horribly. You should consider getting help with that.

 

In any situation I've seen, an implied threat such as "you better watch yourself" is followed up with the police saying "Hey, stop that." Especially if this was brought on by a previous engagement where the person acted aggressively for absolutely no reason, and then proceeded to follow you to consider the aggressive harassment.

You have to remember that in the area where Riffster is a law enforcement officer that the angry individual could use deadly force on a cacher who is threatening his guard rail and say he was "standing his ground" and not be guilty of any crime.

Proof that some folks have no idea what they are talking about..

 

If that was you, you would done all your power and plus to stop this guy because of his threats and I know you would took it personal. But its anyone else, you cops will say... "deal with it, nothing we can do about it."

[+Manville Possum]

This guy is bothering me more and more the more I read. I think just archive the cache and lets get back to having fun.

The cache has already been archived by a reviewer. Now it's a heckle the Police thread, and I'm against that.

[4wheelin_fool]

The police do not all respond the same way to calls in different parts of the country. In parts of Florida, they have a hands off approach, and only respond if they expect to arrest someone. In 1989 I totaled a 2 year old Jeep Wrangler in the center of the town of Wildwood NJ while on vacation. I was obviously drunk and expected to be arrested, but the police did no such thing. I learned that they usually let people get away with that if there are no injuries. They are rather laid back to allow a vacation type of atmosphere as to not scare away the visitors, and only have cracked down in the last few years. If I had been in Ocean City NJ, several miles north, I certainly would have been arrested if there was an accident, even without BAC over the limit, as it is a dry town and rather strict.

 

In Sparta NJ where this occurred, there has been several break ins right around the corner from the cache near the Glenn road address, as well as an arrest of someone on an active warrant who had a criminal history of stealing cars, and had been knocking on doors a few blocks away asking people if they wanted to sell their car.

 

October 04, 2012

Sparta Police said a Cheyenne Trail home was broken into on Tuesday night, less than two weeks after another burglary occurred on Glen Road.

According to police, the Cheyenne Trail burglary occurred sometime between 6 and 10 p.m. when the homeowner was out. Jewelry was stolen and several rooms were ransacked, police said.

Entry was gained into the home by kicking in the locked front door, police said.

Police said the amount of jewelry stolen is unknown, and the homeowner is still inventorying her valuables. Det. Sgt. John Schanstra and Det. Terrence Mulligan are currently investigating the incident, police said.

 

Less than two weeks ago, another home was broken into on Sept. 21 on Glen Road where both jewelry and electronics were stolen from one bedroom, police said.

Officers responded to the burglary at 5:05 p.m. that Friday evening, and found entry was also gained through the locked front door, police said.

The value of the stolen items are not being released at this time, police said.

 

These incidents are among 18 burglaries that have occurred in Sparta this year, police said.

Police have made arrests in nine of the burglaries and continue to investigate the other incidents. Police said additional arrests are anticipated.

Most of the burglaries are not connected and were committed by different individuals and groups, police said. The incidents occurred throughout the town and have not been focused on a particular neighborhood, police said.

 

Sparta Police urge residents to stay vigilant and be alert as to who is walking in the neighborhood or parked on residential streets.

 

Police said to call 911 immediately if you see or hear anything suspicious.

 

If you have any information on any of the incidents, call the Sparta Police Detective Bureau at 973-729-3017. Your identity will be kept confidential.

 

This might explain his behavior, especially if it was his house which had been broken into.

Edited September 9, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+nthacker66]

in some jurisdictions, when one chases someone down and verbally assaults them, it is considered a Terrorist Threat - most certainly a criminal offense worthy of calling the authorities.

In this case, since there was no assault, by any statutory definition, there is no terrorist threat.

 

So what you're saying is it's not a threat unless it's acted upon? If you're in law enforcement, I'd assume you would know the definition of a threat which is "A statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not". Telling someone to watch themselves is indeed an implied threat. Especially with the fact that the man followed them for a mile before making the threat, which shows clearly that the man has a habit of acting irrationally as we've seen earlier when he took a tantrum over a guard rail being used to hide the cache. So we'll go back to that definition where it says "A STATEMENT" not "AN ACTION", therefor meaning it is still considered a threat seeing as the threat has been made and is now apparent. That's how threats work. Would any legal action be taken? No. Would the police talk to the guy? Yes, police that actually do their job would go speak to him.

 

You are not understanding that the court of law (which LEO's have to enforce) cannot legally recognize someone following you for a mile and telling you "you better watch out" as any kind of threat. Even thugh we all know this guy was an aggressive so and so, and yes, threatening - the court of law has to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. LEO's know this and could not just slap the cuffs on him and haul him off.

 

Sadly though, yes, im a state where stand your ground is so easily defendable, i'd be more cautious where you cache and who you deal with.

 

Which is why I said no legal action would be taken, but the police would still speak with him.. which also happens to be the question mr law enforcement asked. "Why would the police speak to him?"

depends on the individual leo i guess. you may get one on the other end of the line that asks just that..wait longer and they will ask why you waited so long...

[+nthacker66]

as far as i can see, since the cache has been archived, everyone should stay the heck away from there, let tea party thomas alone in his litterbox standing his ground against all of those boogiemen fox news tell him about and he can wallow in his anger while everyone else moves on.

lesson learned - if you are going to get threatened over a cache, make it an epic one. not some pillbottle in a gaurdrail.

[+giddeanx]

as far as i can see, since the cache has been archived, everyone should stay the heck away from there, let tea party thomas alone in his litterbox standing his ground against all of those boogiemen fox news tell him about and he can wallow in his anger while everyone else moves on.

lesson learned - if you are going to get threatened over a cache, make it an epic one. not some pillbottle in a gaurdrail.

Why the political stuff? Can't a grumpy man just be a grumpy man?

[+OZ2CPU]

when you get caught up in a hot situation,

it turns out it helps you, if you just keep smiling and look friendly

and answer politely in a friendly tone, just say yes to what ever it is, and move on,

dont start to play wise to explain complex stuff, such people allready got their two brain cells overloaded

and can hardly pack more info in there.

[Homeowner11111]

Ok, I am the homeowner. Let me clear up this one sided story. I was at my house and I see someone down on my back lawn. I walk down and ask if I can help this guy. He says no and just looks at me. Then I tell him he is standing on my property, and ask what he is doing. He says "geocaching, have you ever even heard of that?". I say yes, but it's "not really a good spot for that, can you move it?". He says no, he is not the owner. I say " ok, it's going to be gone after you leave here". Basically telling him to take it with him it is of any value to him. I then walk back to my house and a couple minutes later walk back down to the location and take the bottle out of the guardrail. At this point, he drives by me and I toss it across the street, allowing him to see that i removed it and where it is if he wants to get it. I go back inside. About an hour later, I am in my driveway getting ready to leave on my bike. I have my helmet on and bike running when this guy drives by on the main road and points at me, arm fully out the window, points the whole time he's driving by. Now I am heading out of town, just like he is. 80% of the cars leaving town end up at this one stoplight that I eventually meet him at. I did not follow him, I did not see his car again till I was at the light about 2 miles away. He is turning left, I am going right. At this light, you can split the lane here and go right on red, so that's where I'm going. His window is open so I ask him if he has a problem. He says " with who". I say "with me". He says "do I even know you". I say " I think you do". He then says "nice bike, it really suits you". Not knowing what this means, I say " you should watch yourself" or something like that and drive off.

That's it. Hopefully that clears thing up a little.

I came to this site looking for the geocache notes on my "property" and see that its been there for a while and people have reported going up and down the embankment looking for this cache, and that's exactly what I don't want. I can't open myself up the the liability, I'm sure that is understandable. There is an overgrown drainage ditch literally a foot from where these kids were standing that I bet nobody even saw.

Thats it. Nothing against the hobby, I just think it might be better suited to public areas.

Edited September 9, 2013 by Homeowner11111

[+OZ2CPU]

welcome to this site, as you can see topics often change direction fast.

and often only precented from one persons view.

 

Removing a cache from its hide, results in more people spend more time looking for it,

and also they look in a much wide area if they can not find it..

it is MUCH better to ask a geocacher, if he will be so kind to DISABLE the cache online,

and then a week later you can remove the container.

People fill up their GPS units with the info, and they are not online every day,

turists spend several weeks in new contries with just the info they got inside the GPS,

so if they dont know latest updates, they still come look for it,

so please just tell them it is disabled, and they go again.

 

We offcourse dont play this game to harrass anyone,

no matter if the guardrail is puplic or not is not the question,

as long as a person near by is not happy about it, and inform any of the seekers about it,

they will disable it, and kindly inform you what they can do to help you.

 

most people actually like geocachers to show up near their house,

they scare away thiffs and rats, and repport if any kinds of wrong or bad things is going on,

like call the firedepartment incase it is needed.. so it could be a very good thing to have a cache just outside your house,

as long as its position is correct, and it got a good usefull hint, so people can find it..

 

one last thing :

the : "you should watch yourself"

is not the most smart thing to say to anyone, as it can be misunderstood.

Edited September 9, 2013 by OZ2CPU

[Clan Riffster]

in some jurisdictions, when one chases someone down and verbally assaults them, it is considered a Terrorist Threat - most certainly a criminal offense worthy of calling the authorities.

In this case, since there was no assault, by any statutory definition, there is no terrorist threat.

 

So what you're saying is....

What I'm saying is that the term "Assault" has many different definitions across the country, with one common theme, regardless of jurisdiction. To be a threat, there must be an offer, by word or deed, to do violence. Saying words to the effect of, "I'm gonna punch you in the snoot!" would be an offer to do violence, as would be swinging a fist as someone's noggin. Telling someone "You should watch yourself" is not an offer to do violence, nor is following someone for a mile. You would know this had you bothered to do even the tiniest amount of research. But I get it. It's much easier to mindlessly bash law enforcement than it is to actually dig through all those pesky facts.

 

Which is why I said no legal action would be taken, but the police would still speak with him.. which also happens to be the question mr law enforcement asked. "Why would the police speak to him?"

Of course the cops would speak with him, if the complainant insisted. I even spelled out how the conversation would go. We frequently find ourselves talking to free citizens who committed no crime, simply because someone insists we do so. My advice was given in the hopes of saving someone who may be as unaware of the law as you apparently are, the opportunity to avoid being embarrassed. Since everything we do is a matter of public record, part of that conversation would include words to the effect of, "Mr Angry Dude, this is Mr Dogmeat. He filed a complaint against your entirely lawful activity. Care to tell us your side to this incident?" Mostly, the subject of such a complaint is a good sport. They'll roll their eyes and tell their side of the story, chuckling because some Mrs Kravits wanna be felt the need to involve the cops in what they perceived to be a pretty minor incident. Other times, though infrequent, they tell us to go pound sand.

 

If that was you, you would done all your power and plus to stop this guy because of his threats and I know you would took it personal. But its anyone else, you cops will say... "deal with it, nothing we can do about it."

Just to touch on a few points.

1 ) This has been me, more than once.

2 ) I've already detailed exactly where the line is where my lawful authority ends.

3 ) As detailed numerous times, there were no offers to do violence.

4 ) Anyone who has survived life as a cop for more than 3 decades learned long ago not to take things personally.

5 ) If the law prohibits us from taking action, should we do so anyway, just to appease you?

6 ) There are many times on the job when we encounter behavior which we find distasteful, but perfectly legal. One particular incident from a few years ago comes to mind. A parent called us because their 16 year old flipped them off when they told him to clean his room. I suppose your answer would be to arrest the teen, even though he committed no crime? That's what dad wanted me to do. Contrary to your prediction, I did not blow it off by saying there was nothing I could do. Rather, I explained to the parents that his behavior, whilst rude and insulting, was not criminal, and as such, I could not take enforcement action. I then explained what steps I could do, and asked them how they wanted me to address it.

[Pup Patrol]

Glad to hear from the home owner. Two sides to every story, etc.

 

It's funny how we always say misunderstandings arise out of forum posting because we aren't talking face-to-face, seeing body language, etc. Apparently, this is a problem in real life, too. I imagine it's because we're communicating with folks we've never met and don't know enough to know their body language, etc.

 

In these sorts of circumstances, it's best to tell the person that sure, I'll take the cache with me. Then just take the damned thing, post on the cache page that it needs archived, and that if the cache owner wants the container, they can contact you.

 

One only hopes that a history is kept by the reviewers of these sorts of things, and that they can flag this location so that no other cache gets placed there.

 

 

 

B.

[4wheelin_fool]

Ok, I am the homeowner. Let me clear up this one sided story. I was at my house and I see someone down on my back lawn. I walk down and ask if I can help this guy. He says no and just looks at me. Then I tell him he is standing on my property, and ask what he is doing. He says "geocaching, have you ever even heard of that?". I say yes, but it's "not really a good spot for that, can you move it?". He says no, he is not the owner. I say " ok, it's going to be gone after you leave here". Basically telling him to take it with him it is of any value to him. I then walk back to my house and a couple minutes later walk back down to the location and take the bottle out of the guardrail. At this point, he drives by me and I toss it across the street, allowing him to see that i removed it and where it is if he wants to get it. I go back inside. About an hour later, I am in my driveway getting ready to leave on my bike. I have my helmet on and bike running when this guy drives by on the main road and points at me, arm fully out the window, points the whole time he's driving by. Now I am heading out of town, just like he is. 80% of the cars leaving town end up at this one stoplight that I eventually meet him at. I did not follow him, I did not see his car again till I was at the light about 2 miles away. He is turning left, I am going right. At this light, you can split the lane here and go right on red, so that's where I'm going. His window is open so I ask him if he has a problem. He says " with who". I say "with me". He says "do I even know you". I say " I think you do". He then says "nice bike, it really suits you". Not knowing what this means, I say " you should watch yourself" or something like that and drive off.

That's it. Hopefully that clears thing up a little.

I came to this site looking for the geocache notes on my "property" and see that its been there for a while and people have reported going up and down the embankment looking for this cache, and that's exactly what I don't want. I can't open myself up the the liability, I'm sure that is understandable. There is an overgrown drainage ditch literally a foot from where these kids were standing that I bet nobody even saw.

Thats it. Nothing against the hobby, I just think it might be better suited to public areas.

 

That sounds pretty benign. We were just getting ready to gear up all of the conspiracy theories, as well as cop bashing and you just ruined it. The tossing of the pill bottle from the guardrail evoked some rather violent images.

[4wheelin_fool]

Wait, you said he pointed at you. Was it with his pinky finger? That the signal that the mob bosses use to identify a mark that they target to rub out. As a potential threat, perhaps you should have called the police.

[+DonB]

I have only one question....you have a guardrail in your backyard?

[+uxorious]

as far as i can see, since the cache has been archived, everyone should stay the heck away from there, let tea party thomas alone in his litterbox standing his ground against all of those boogiemen fox news tell him about and he can wallow in his anger while everyone else moves on.

lesson learned - if you are going to get threatened over a cache, make it an epic one. not some pillbottle in a gaurdrail.

Why the political stuff? Can't a grumpy man just be a grumpy man?

 

Can't we keep the politics out of at least one place, like maybe the forums. Politics have nothing to do with this situation, and you are just showing your ignorance by ranting.

[+The Jester]

I have only one question....you have a guardrail in your backyard?

Most people think their propery extends to the street, but don't know about the width of the right-fo-way that streets/roads have. The chances are, that guardrail is not on his propery. I've had people yell at me for pulling off the road to check a load on the roof not wanting me on "their property", while I'm still on the shoulder (ROW) of the road.

 

Still, it would have been better if the cacher had taken the cache with them and contacted the owner to return it, and left it up to them to deal with the neighbor (if they wanted to replace the cache).

[+bflentje]

I'm sorry you always have to strut around these boards as if you know all and see all. I hear acting constantly aggressive over small things ages you horribly. You should consider getting help with that.

 

In any situation I've seen, an implied threat such as "you better watch yourself" is followed up with the police saying "Hey, stop that." Especially if this was brought on by a previous engagement where the person acted aggressively for absolutely no reason, and then proceeded to follow you to consider the aggressive harassment.

I'm sorry you feel threatened by those folks who offer opinions on their area of expertise. If it will make you feel better, I will try offering my thoughts on particle physics, string theory and making okra edible, all of which are topics I know nothing about. I would hate to be the cause of your self esteem being bruised.

 

I'm curious though. If you were washing your car, and a cop pulled up and said, "Hey, stop that.", would you be receptive to that command? In both scenarios, the officer in question would be giving orders, telling free citizens to cease their lawful behavior.

 

Don't taze me bro.

[+J Grouchy]

I have only one question....you have a guardrail in your backyard?

Most people think their propery extends to the street, but don't know about the width of the right-fo-way that streets/roads have. The chances are, that guardrail is not on his propery. I've had people yell at me for pulling off the road to check a load on the roof not wanting me on "their property", while I'm still on the shoulder (ROW) of the road.

 

Still, it would have been better if the cacher had taken the cache with them and contacted the owner to return it, and left it up to them to deal with the neighbor (if they wanted to replace the cache).

 

I hope his backyard is at least worth stopping to look at to have such a brouhaha over this cache...

[+larryc43230]

Most people think their propery extends to the street, but don't know about the width of the right-fo-way that streets/roads have. The chances are, that guardrail is not on his propery. I've had people yell at me for pulling off the road to check a load on the roof not wanting me on "their property", while I'm still on the shoulder (ROW) of the road.

Homeowner11111 specifically stated that "I came to this site looking for the geocache notes on my "property" and see that its been there for a while and people have reported going up and down the embankment looking for this cache, and that's exactly what I don't want. I can't open myself up the the liability, I'm sure that is understandable." (emphasis added).

 

Herein lies the problem and this is why I can sympathize with the homeowner in this case (though the geocacher who went through this experience wasn't culpable, because he presumably had no way of knowing). Previous geocachers, as evidenced by their own cache logs, had trespassed on the homeowner's property when they went up and down the embankment looking for the cache. Whether or not the guardrail is on private property, I can understand the homeowner getting upset by geocachers trespassing as they look for the cache "up and down the embankment".

 

At the least, the cache description should have included a warning not to look too far behind the guardrail because that area is private property. On the other hand, there's this inexplicable tendency on the part of some cachers to not bother to read cache descriptions, so I'm not sure there is a good solution for this sort of situation.

 

--Larry

[+TeamRabbitRun]

I have only one question....you have a guardrail in your backyard?

Most people think their propery extends to the street, but don't know about the width of the right-fo-way that streets/roads have. The chances are, that guardrail is not on his propery. I've had people yell at me for pulling off the road to check a load on the roof not wanting me on "their property", while I'm still on the shoulder (ROW) of the road.

 

Still, it would have been better if the cacher had taken the cache with them and contacted the owner to return it, and left it up to them to deal with the neighbor (if they wanted to replace the cache).

 

There's a difference between 'property' and 'right of way'.

 

I own my lawn right up to the road pavement, but I'm also subject to several 'rights of way' along the edge of it, held by the electric company and the town highway department.

 

But, I OWN that property. If I don't want anyone (including geocachers) parking on the edge of my lawn or messing around with the guardrail that my town highway dept installed three feet into my lawn to keep cars off the REST of my lawn, that's my perogative.

 

It's called a right-of-way because it gives someone else the right to make their way across that property. But, not just ANYBODY - only the holder of the ROW.

 

Hey you kids! Stay Off My Lawn!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I have only one question....you have a guardrail in your backyard?

Most people think their propery extends to the street, but don't know about the width of the right-fo-way that streets/roads have. The chances are, that guardrail is not on his propery. I've had people yell at me for pulling off the road to check a load on the roof not wanting me on "their property", while I'm still on the shoulder (ROW) of the road.

 

Still, it would have been better if the cacher had taken the cache with them and contacted the owner to return it, and left it up to them to deal with the neighbor (if they wanted to replace the cache).

 

There's a difference between 'property' and 'right of way'.

 

An most importantly, the accuracy of a commercial grade GPS isn't good enough to tell the difference. Looking at many of the logs of the cache in question it sounds like that coordinates were not very accurate and would tend to lead someone towards the private property rather than where the cache was actually located.

 

I also would also sympathize with the homeowner, and think that as a general rule we should *always* sympathize with the home owner rather than insist that we should be able to find every cache.

 

Even if a cache can legally be placed is some location doesn't mean that it *should* be placed or found. If a home owner says, "I would prefer if the cache was not at this location" (no matter how they phrase it), it should be removed.

 

 

[+Dogmeat*]

Can you link us to the cache?

[+nthacker66]

This may be a case of "just because you CAN put a cache there doesnt mean you SHOULD put a cache there" - I will turn and keeping going if I see a cache that seems to be close to someones fence, house, etc. You just never know what kind of person you will encounter. I also try to put myself into their shoes. If I had a house with public property backing up to it, I don't think I would want people lurking out behind it so close, no matter what the reason.

I find it rather disturbing that Groundspeak is so concerned with being at least 150ft way from railroad tracks creating sort of a "buffer zone" but doesn't extend the same courtesy to private property of home owners.

Now before anyone goes flaying off the handle commenting or sharing this post with their bestest caching buddies in their little inner circles - i am in no way defending what mr. hot head on the motor cycle did. There is a proper way to handle things. I am just saying we, as cache hiders and finders need to be a little more respectful of people's private property beyond the official parcel lines.

Edited September 9, 2013 by nthacker66

[+Mn-treker]

Before people get too far into this talk about right of way you need to check with your state, county, city, township.

Here in Minnesota the right of way laws are different in each of those areas. Example I live in a township, I own the land on both sides of the road.

I also own the ditch and the land under the road. The township owns the right of way for the road and utilities. The county owns nothing nor does the state in this.

The general public does not have right of way to be in the ditch, they must stay on the road. ATV and snowmobile are also prohibited from the ditch.

Along a county road with county owned right of way it is different. The public is allowed to be in the ditch. But the land owner may be the owner of the ditch that is

in the right of way. Right of way laws do not give property rights to the owner of the right of way. They only gives limited right of way rights to the county or state.

I still have ownership of the land under the road and pay property taxes on it. I must allow car travel due to right of way, but may stop anybody from the ditch.

I generally do not though, when somebody comes and asks to harvest some grapevine or take pictures of plants I say ok.

but when somebody drove a snowmobile across my drive way I put up a very hard wall. State law prohibits travel in my ditch by ATV and snowmobile.

 

Bottom line check your laws, don't assume.

[+nthacker66]

Before people get too far into this talk about right of way you need to check with your state, county, city, township.

Here in Minnesota the right of way laws are different in each of those areas. Example I live in a township, I own the land on both sides of the road.

I also own the ditch and the land under the road. The township owns the right of way for the road and utilities. The county owns nothing nor does the state in this.

The general public does not have right of way to be in the ditch, they must stay on the road. ATV and snowmobile are also prohibited from the ditch.

Along a county road with county owned right of way it is different. The public is allowed to be in the ditch. But the land owner may be the owner of the ditch that is

in the right of way. Right of way laws do not give property rights to the owner of the right of way. They only gives limited right of way rights to the county or state.

I still have ownership of the land under the road and pay property taxes on it. I must allow car travel due to right of way, but may stop anybody from the ditch.

I generally do not though, when somebody comes and asks to harvest some grapevine or take pictures of plants I say ok.

but when somebody drove a snowmobile across my drive way I put up a very hard wall. State law prohibits travel in my ditch by ATV and snowmobile.

 

Bottom line check your laws, don't assume.

 

or easier - if if you see a guardrail and have a burning desire to put an empty pill bottle in it, go home, watch something like National Treasure and be inspired to hide a cache with more creativity in places that are a little more interesting.

If geocaching is "the language of location" let's speak it fluently. ;-)

[+larryc43230]

or easier - if if you see a guardrail and have a burning desire to put an empty pill bottle in it, go home, watch something like National Treasure and be inspired to hide a cache with more creativity in places that are a little more interesting.

If geocaching is "the language of location" let's speak it fluently. ;-)

^ ^ ^

 

This. Well said.

 

--Larry

[Clan Riffster]

.

If geocaching is "the language of location" let's speak it fluently. ;-)

That should be on a tee shirt.

[+SwineFlew]

Before people get too far into this talk about right of way you need to check with your state, county, city, township.

Here in Minnesota the right of way laws are different in each of those areas. Example I live in a township, I own the land on both sides of the road.

I also own the ditch and the land under the road. The township owns the right of way for the road and utilities. The county owns nothing nor does the state in this.

The general public does not have right of way to be in the ditch, they must stay on the road. ATV and snowmobile are also prohibited from the ditch.

Along a county road with county owned right of way it is different. The public is allowed to be in the ditch. But the land owner may be the owner of the ditch that is

in the right of way. Right of way laws do not give property rights to the owner of the right of way. They only gives limited right of way rights to the county or state.

I still have ownership of the land under the road and pay property taxes on it. I must allow car travel due to right of way, but may stop anybody from the ditch.

I generally do not though, when somebody comes and asks to harvest some grapevine or take pictures of plants I say ok.

but when somebody drove a snowmobile across my drive way I put up a very hard wall. State law prohibits travel in my ditch by ATV and snowmobile.

 

Bottom line check your laws, don't assume.

 

or easier - if if you see a guardrail and have a burning desire to put an empty pill bottle in it, go home, watch something like National Treasure and be inspired to hide a cache with more creativity in places that are a little more interesting.

If geocaching is "the language of location" let's speak it fluently. ;-)

Lame caches are Groundspeak's bread and butter.

Edited September 9, 2013 by SwineFlew

[+tozainamboku]

Before people get too far into this talk about right of way you need to check with your state, county, city, township.

Here in Minnesota the right of way laws are different in each of those areas. Example I live in a township, I own the land on both sides of the road.

I also own the ditch and the land under the road. The township owns the right of way for the road and utilities. The county owns nothing nor does the state in this.

The general public does not have right of way to be in the ditch, they must stay on the road. ATV and snowmobile are also prohibited from the ditch.

Along a county road with county owned right of way it is different. The public is allowed to be in the ditch. But the land owner may be the owner of the ditch that is

in the right of way. Right of way laws do not give property rights to the owner of the right of way. They only gives limited right of way rights to the county or state.

I still have ownership of the land under the road and pay property taxes on it. I must allow car travel due to right of way, but may stop anybody from the ditch.

I generally do not though, when somebody comes and asks to harvest some grapevine or take pictures of plants I say ok.

but when somebody drove a snowmobile across my drive way I put up a very hard wall. State law prohibits travel in my ditch by ATV and snowmobile.

 

Bottom line check your laws, don't assume.

 

or easier - if if you see a guardrail and have a burning desire to put an empty pill bottle in it, go home, watch something like National Treasure and be inspired to hide a cache with more creativity in places that are a little more interesting.

If geocaching is "the language of location" let's speak it fluently. ;-)

Lame caches are Groundspeak's bread and butter.

You can be sure that if every cache was in a alligator infested swamp, geocaching would be a lot less popular. However, it's not clear which you might rather avoid - an angry alligator or an angry homeowner.

[+Ladybug Kids]

 

I love geocaching...I love the fact that it is a clean healthy hobby....but God help me.....I have had so many hassles geocaching. I can't even take my kids out for a few quick caches without some crap happening.....Is it just New Jersey or has the whole world started to crumble.

Can't be all of New Jersey. I've had a great time geocaching in northern New Jersey during many visits to my in-laws.

 

One twist to what I would have done is offered to take the cache with me if the homeowner wanted it gone, logged a "found it," logged a "Needs Archived," and then e-mailed the Cache Owner through his/her profile to make arrangements for returning the cache container to them.

 

Whether the cache is technically on the homeowner's property or not is irrelevant. If the homeowner wants the cache gone because people lurking around the area in question cause concern, that is reason enough for the cache not to be there. The game doesn't need to give non-players an excuse to malign it.

Edited September 9, 2013 by Ladybug Kids

[+Mn-treker]

I agree it should have been removed. We don't need a bad name for this game.

I know of a cache up here where the home owner behaved just like that.

He came out dressed in army camo and banged on the truck of a fellow cacher.

To play it safe I told him he should just pull it rather than deal with a crazy man.

 

It is best to just go find another place to hide. Some home owners get a kick out of

watching geocachers look all over for these things. just look carefully, you might

find a snake, muskrat, beaver infested marsh or woods to hide in.

Or maybe a Wolf, Cougar, Bear occupied area like I did. Amo cans can take a real beating.

[4wheelin_fool]

It's splitting hairs to say that it's technically not on his property and not his concern. Even if it is on the DOTs right of way, by the same measure the DOT probably would not welcome it there, or view it as an acceptable use of their property. I find it very odd that someone would hide something in the middle of a residential area on a guardrail just outside someone's back yard.

[Clan Riffster]

However, it's not clear which you might rather avoid - an angry alligator or an angry homeowner.

Alligators don't get angry, as we understand the emotion.

[+Manville Possum]

However, it's not clear which you might rather avoid - an angry alligator or an angry homeowner.

Alligators don't get angry, as we understand the emotion.

Yeah, never had one shoot at me either.

[Clan Riffster]

However, it's not clear which you might rather avoid - an angry alligator or an angry homeowner.

Alligators don't get angry, as we understand the emotion.

Yeah, never had one shoot at me either.

Their arms are too short to acquire proper sight alignment.

[4wheelin_fool]

or easier - if if you see a guardrail and have a burning desire to put an empty pill bottle in it, go home, watch something like National Treasure and be inspired to hide a cache with more creativity in places that are a little more interesting.

If geocaching is "the language of location" let's speak it fluently. ;-)

^ ^ ^

 

This. Well said.

 

--Larry

 

There are guardrails in scenic spots, historical, interesting, and unique areas. Some are just pull offs on the side of the road, or down dead ends. Some are in shopping centers. Some are in the middle of absolutely nowhere. I can understand the reason for all of these placements and think they are fine, except for in a residential area behind a house. There is no reason for that, even if its just for a quickie. There are much better places for it. Has this sport evolved to the point where no thinking is involved? A guardrail is the same wherever it may be? Or even a lampost? Just because the object has had plenty of find history, doesn't necessarily mean the location is fine. This cache was there for several years, and all of the finders were enabling the mentality behind it.

 

TFTC is too much. Thanks? Are you kidding me?

[+WarNinjas]

I think just respect homeowners for coming here and posting. The cache is archived and let it be. Our apologies for causing you so much problems over this game and we will try to do better in the future! Glad he took the time to figure out what it was and coming here and if he don't want it there then it wont be there. My guess is over time he might try the game and like it and place one there himself...or not! All is well that ends well.

[+WRASTRO]

I'm sorry you always have to strut around these boards as if you know all and see all. I hear acting constantly aggressive over small things ages you horribly. You should consider getting help with that.

 

In any situation I've seen, an implied threat such as "you better watch yourself" is followed up with the police saying "Hey, stop that." Especially if this was brought on by a previous engagement where the person acted aggressively for absolutely no reason, and then proceeded to follow you to consider the aggressive harassment.

You have to remember that in the area where Riffster is a law enforcement officer that the angry individual could use deadly force on a cacher who is threatening his guard rail and say he was "standing his ground" and not be guilty of any crime.

 

I am disappointed in you toz. You usually have well reasoned arguments and discussion points. This statement of yours is simply uncalled for and a pile of carp.

Edited September 11, 2013 by BlueRajah
edited out an inflammatory comment

[+bflentje]

I'm sorry you always have to strut around these boards as if you know all and see all. I hear acting constantly aggressive over small things ages you horribly. You should consider getting help with that.

 

In any situation I've seen, an implied threat such as "you better watch yourself" is followed up with the police saying "Hey, stop that." Especially if this was brought on by a previous engagement where the person acted aggressively for absolutely no reason, and then proceeded to follow you to consider the aggressive harassment.

You have to remember that in the area where Riffster is a law enforcement officer that the angry individual could use deadly force on a cacher who is threatening his guard rail and say he was "standing his ground" and not be guilty of any crime.

 

I am disappointed in you toz. You usually have well reasoned arguments and discussion points. This statement of yours is simply uncalled for and a pile of carp. ***

 

Race baiting?

 

I think this thread has run its course.

Edited September 11, 2013 by BlueRajah
edited out an inflammatory comment

[BlueRajah]

Please do not take this thread any farther down that trail, or it will be closed, and time outs may be issued.

 

For those that have not read the forum guidelines today...

 

2. Forum courtesy: Please treat Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, fellow community members, and guests in these forums with courtesy and respect. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, everyone should be treated respectfully.

[+WRASTRO]

My apologies to toz and to the others in this thread for taking my comment too far.

[+BlueDeuce]

It takes two in order to need mediation.

 

Of course, it's never one person being unreasonable.

 

I'm not asking for an arrest, but I will involve law enforcement so there is a history of the situation.