My GPS V was taken from me today.

2.7k · May 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):
It may not even be a security policy, but a business related one. Perhaps in the past other amusement park companies would use it to map out how their park runs? Like the placement of concession stands and such.

Would be a simple matter to take an aerial photo of the park or look it up on satellite photos on the internet. A lot cheaper than admission too!

Caint never did nothing.

GDAE, Dave

1.2k · May 9, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by yumitori:

quote:
Originally posted by Breaktrack:

Just seems like there are an awful lot of people who want to shout about their rights when they are not even dealing with a governmental entity. The Constitution was crafted as a limit on GOVERNMENT, not Six Flags....LOL.

JMHO.

True, but that hardly gives Six Flags, or any other business, some special right to take my property. They can throw me out, but they cannot legally rob me.

Ron/yumitori

Sorry to have to tell ya, but WRONG!!! LOL.

Just another misinformation that is very commonly spread by folks that don't understand personal property rights. Various and sundry devices are confiscated all the time for various and sundry reasons, and no one was "robbed" of their property since they arranged to give it back to you outside the front gate. This should be a hint as to the correct answer: You were on "private property" and you were there voluntarily, and yes they can confiscate property from you. However, I too believe they should have a good reason, no doubt about that, just the negative publicity alone is not worth it to most in this type of business. If you were walking down the street in your town and a real live on duty police officer did the same thing I'd have a LOT more questions about what is going on. But when you're in a park such as you're talking about you voluntarily submit yourself to the rules as they stand. Now to be reasonable the rules should be posted plainly and clearly, and all individuals tasked with enforcing them should be fully briefed in the whys and wherefores before they just go out and jack you up for your GPS, but to say they "can't" do that is just silly.

And for those of you who find some kind of satisfaction in saying "well, they'd play heck getting it from me, I'd bash their stinking heads in" etc, etc, etc. Please, your childish streak is showing.... Save the violence for when it's truly justified, as it sometimes is. Besides, in my experience, it's not the ones who talk a big fight that you have to worry about....

JMHO.

"Trade up, trade even, or don't trade!!!" My philosophy of life.

1.5k · May 9, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Mzee & Associates:
_Hmmm "FROM MY COLD DEAD HAND"_

Myself I'm in and out of Mexico 2-3 times a week and have a GPSr dash-mounted in both my vehicles. I have been question by the authorities, both US & Mexican. I explain to them the use and reason for them and enough said, no problems. (the US has both my vehicles on their computer as GPSr equipped) Oh Well ~~~ so goes life

Mzee ~~~ "And now where"

And EPIC can tell me just how many times you've crossed the border, in what vehicles, and exactly what dates/times.

Brian

Team A.I.

May 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Breaktrack:

Sorry to have to tell ya, but WRONG!!! LOL.

Just another misinformation that is very commonly spread by folks that don't understand personal property rights. Various and sundry devices are confiscated all the time for various and sundry reasons, and no one was "robbed" of their property since they arranged to give it back to you outside the front gate. This should be a hint as to the correct answer: You were on "private property" and you were there voluntarily, and yes they can confiscate property from you.

Indeed? Hey, Breaktrack, why don't you come for a visit? Be sure to bring lots of expensive stuff with you...

Seriously, perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes. I'm refering to someone taking a possession and not returning it. You seem to be speaking of security holding an item while escorting someone to the site's gate. Not quite the same...

Ron/yumitori

1.6k · May 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Breaktrack:
Sorry to have to tell ya, but WRONG!!! LOL.

Just another misinformation that is very commonly spread by folks that don't understand personal property rights.

Not that I don't believe you. (Okay, I don't believe you, but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.) Care to cite something on the books where a private land owner can legally deprive a private citizen of personal property that is not an eminent danger to others?

Got GPS? mentions that he was without his GPS for some 37 minutes. They took it even after he said he was leaving their property. If he was actually leaving and they had his unit for 37 minutes that means that they were not just escorting an unauthorized piece of eletronic gear off premises, but in fact depriving him of his property. I very think that fits the definition of theft, no matter who was doing it. I don't think it matters much that he got it back, the fact is he was deprived of it and he couldn't leave until he got it back. Even if he could leave, it meant that he was without it.

Pure and simple.

And unless I'm shown otherwise, I'll stand by that opinion.

CR

May 13, 2003

Sissy - Breaktrack is right, at least if you lived in New York. If you enter the park (private property), you are agreeing to their rules and regs while there (check out the disclaimer on back of the ticket). If you break the rules/regs, you can be ejected without refund. Obviously, if there is no rule against GPSr in the park, the officer, be he security or police, exceeded his authority. Also (again in New York - not that familiar with Ohio Penal codes), it isn't theft unless you take with intent to keep the object (NYS Penal Law, Section 155.00 - Petit Larceny and definitions of steal and deprive). Additionally, under Criminal Procedure Law Sect. 35, someone in charge of maintaining order on a premises (your rent a cops) can use as much force as it takes to maintain order when encountering resistance - so when you decide to take on a rent-a-cop, bear in mind that in New York (again, don't know about Ohio) they could use as many as it took to "control " (ie - beat the crap out of you) and then have you charged with assault on top of it. BTW, I don't agree with what they did - I find that almost everyone will do what you ask if you treat them with respect and explain your actions - the old golden rule, treat them the way you would like to be treated. Just my 2 cents worth.

Catcher24

"You see, you spend a good deal of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time." Jim Bouton

2.3k · May 13, 2003

Let's not forget that they did NOT have any rules AGAINST GPSrs posted at the entranceways or anywhere else, and STILL they went ahead and confiscated it anyhow, without any justification AT ALL...if they don't want it in the park, then POST it in the list of prohibited items, for Christ's sake...some Supercop was making up the rules as he seemed fit, and because he's got his buddies and a badge, they expect everyone to just lie down and surrender like good little obedient sheep...

1.2k · May 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by TEAM 360:
Let's not forget that they did NOT have any rules AGAINST GPSrs posted at the entranceways or anywhere else, and STILL they went ahead and confiscated it anyhow, without any justification AT ALL...if they don't want it in the park, then POST it in the list of prohibited items, for Christ's sake...some Supercop was making up the rules as he seemed fit, and because he's got his buddies and a badge, they expect everyone to just lie down and surrender like good little obedient sheep...

Ah, now we get to the crux of the matter... it was the cop's fault! Of course, how silly are we to think he might have been enforcing rules that the person involved did not see, or overlooked, when they entered the park.

Point in case: I worked for seven days at the Shell Houston Open Golf Tournament here in Houston. It was a great extra job, lots of really cooperative, upscale reasonable people. A few drunks, a few folks not wanting to be quiet when they were supposed to, but overall, a pretty easy gig. However, there were NUMEROUS HUGE signs on the way in, and throughout the courses, that stated: NO CAMERAS OR CELL PHONES. ITEMS WILL BE CONFISCATED. LEAVE THESE ITEMS IN THE CAR.

Any guesses on how many cell phones and cameras were confiscated? C'mon, surely you would think that would be sufficient to let people know they can't bring those items in and they'd leave them in the car, right? Short answer - NO. Now these signs were huge, and people would look at the course marshalls like "What? What signs? Why are you taking my cell phone that rang while Fred Couples was trying to putt???"

Folks, I agree that as a norm you should not have your personal property confiscated. I agree rules should be posted and obviously so. I agree your property should be returned to you promptly and courteously. But posts like the one I'm quoting above just show how a lot of people think. It's them mean old cops and it is NEVER that I screwed up, I missed the sign posting the rules, or I failed to read the disclaimer on the back of my ticket, or the original story included all the details that make the poster seem the victim, with none of the details that would have told a whole different story (and no, I'm not saying that's the case).

It's always the cops fault first, and the cop had to be a dumbbutt and not know the rules, and he had to be overstepping his authority, and I'm a victim so wah, wah, wah.

Call 1-800-wah freaking wah.

In the meantime, I, and those like me, will keep trying to do our job and put up with such nonsense.

JMHO.

"Trade up, trade even, or don't trade!!!" My philosophy of life.

[This message was edited by Breaktrack on May 13, 2003 at 06:28 PM.]

[This message was edited by Breaktrack on May 13, 2003 at 06:31 PM.]

May 13, 2003

quote:
Second, they don't want you mapping their rides. This is probably their reasoning for not even allowing your GPSr in the park.

When I went to Seaworld, Orlando I took my GPS on Kraken 3 times! However, when I tried to save the path, I couldn't. It was the only ride I couldn't save!

1.6k · May 14, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by catcher24:
Sissy - Breaktrack is right, at least if you lived in New York

Additionally, under Criminal Procedure Law Sect. 35, someone in charge of maintaining order on a premises (your rent a cops) can use as much force as it takes to maintain order when encountering resistance ...

Okay, thanks for the info.

However, I really don't think the above would apply if the officer started it. Just walking up to someone and taking something could very well, and understandably, start an altercation. A badge doesn't give someone the right to simply take something from someone for no reason. Plus, a jury might see "assualt" in a different light when they know the facts.

Then we come to the fact of "maintaining order." If this "order" has anything to do with not mapping the site, then escorting him off premises would have been the minimum force, not taking the unit. So, I still don't see where an officer can forcibly take a piece of personal property from someone on private property. I still think the best they can do is eject the person from the property.

quote:
Orignally posted by Breaktrack:
It's always the cops fault first...

I know I'm not saying it's always the cop's fault. Actually, to the contrary, it's generally the civilian's fault.

However, in this case, it baffles me as to why the cop choose to take the GPS unit when the website says nothing about it. Granted, I haven't been there so I don't know if there are any signs, but the website is fairly verbose on what is and isn't allowed. You'd think if they don't want people mapping the place with GPS they would say so.

Then, even though GOT GPS said he was leaving, they took the unit anyway. Granted, we're only hearing one side, but taking this on face value, the cop was in the wrong.

On the deal about the cameras and cellphones, what would have been the first step if the person refused to give up the offending property?

CR

May 14, 2003

Just a word of thanks regarding this post. I was at Cedar Point this weekend, and I would have brought my GPS in if it hadn't been for this post.

The only restrictions I saw were the mega-rides stating no loose items (to which there were many lockers available), but other then that, I did not specifially see a " NO GPS" sign. I did see more security then I ever have at Cedar Point, but it may have been due to there being less of a crowd, so they stood out more.

Make a sanity check.

1.2k · May 14, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

quote:
Originally posted by catcher24:
Sissy - Breaktrack is right, at least if you lived in New York

Additionally, under Criminal Procedure Law Sect. 35, someone in charge of maintaining order on a premises (your rent a cops) can use as much force as it takes to maintain order when encountering resistance ...

Okay, thanks for the info.

However, I really don't think the above would apply if the officer started it. Just walking up to someone and taking something could very well, and understandably, start an altercation. A badge doesn't give someone the right to simply take something from someone for no reason. Plus, a jury might see "assualt" in a different light when they know the facts.

Then we come to the fact of "maintaining order." If this "order" has anything to do with not mapping the site, then escorting him off premises would have been the _minimum_ force, not taking the unit. So, I still don't see where an officer can forcibly take a piece of personal property from someone on private property. I still think the best they can do is eject the person from the property.

quote:
Orignally posted by Breaktrack:
It's always the cops fault first...

I know I'm not saying it's always the cop's fault. Actually, to the contrary, it's generally the civilian's fault.

However, in this case, it baffles me as to why the cop choose to _take_ the GPS unit when the website says _nothing_ about it. Granted, I haven't been there so I don't know if there are any signs, but the website is fairly verbose on what is and isn't allowed. You'd think if they don't want people mapping the place with GPS they would say so.

Then, even though GOT GPS said he was leaving, they took the unit anyway. Granted, we're only hearing one side, but taking this on _face value_, the cop was in the wrong.

On the deal about the cameras and cellphones, what would have been the first step if the person refused to give up the offending property?

CR

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/72057_2000.gif

Sissy, as usual, your post is extremely reasonable. Thanks for that up front.

Yes, on face value, appears to be unreasonable, I never had a beef with that point, just the automatic assumption on some folks part the cop was wrong and that was that. You were not one of those folks.

On the deal with the cameras and cellphones, if the person refused to give them up, they would be ejected from the premises. No questions asked. Of course, they would be asked to leave first, but they would be ejected regardless. I don't think this is unreasonable and being private property the tour marshalls would be perfectly within their rights.

In all honesty I do feel people seem particularly sensitive to this issue. Waaaaay too sensitive in my humble estimation. We've been allowed to get away with so much in this country that we've decided it's our "right" to do as we please. It is always difficult to bring people back down to earch on such issues and it is never well recieved. If people are not aware of what their "rights" are when on private property, even though there is public access, they should become more aware in order to protect themselves first of all, and to not look foolish when whining about things that happen. Just remember, resisting violently is not the answer to such a low leverl assault on your "rights". If it comes to an officer, or security guard, threatening your life or safety, that's a whole other matter. But physically resisting in such a case such as this is overkill and makes the individual just as foolish as the officer who starts such a confrontation based on such lousy grounds.

I just want everyone to realize there are two sides to every story, and there is a reasonable response that will work in your favor, and an unreasonable reponse that will not.

Keep on caching!

"Trade up, trade even, or don't trade!!!" My philosophy of life.

2.3k · May 14, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Breaktrack:

quote:
Originally posted by TEAM 360:
Let's not forget that they did NOT have any rules AGAINST GPSrs posted at the entranceways or anywhere else, and STILL they went ahead and confiscated it anyhow, without any justification AT ALL...if they don't want it in the park, then POST it in the list of prohibited items, for Christ's sake...some Supercop was making up the rules as he seemed fit, and because he's got his buddies and a badge, they expect everyone to just lie down and surrender like good little obedient sheep...

Ah, now we get to the crux of the matter... it was the cop's fault! Of course, how silly are we to think he might have been enforcing rules that the person involved did not see, or overlooked, when they entered the park.

Point in case: I worked for seven days at the Shell Houston Open Golf Tournament here in Houston. It was a great extra job, lots of really cooperative, upscale reasonable people. A few drunks, a few folks not wanting to be quiet when they were supposed to, but overall, a pretty easy gig. However, there were NUMEROUS HUGE signs on the way in, and throughout the courses, that stated: NO CAMERAS OR CELL PHONES. ITEMS WILL BE CONFISCATED. LEAVE THESE ITEMS IN THE CAR.

Any guesses on how many cell phones and cameras were confiscated? C'mon, surely you would think that would be sufficient to let people know they can't bring those items in and they'd leave them in the car, right? Short answer - NO. Now these signs were huge, and people would look at the course marshalls like "What? What signs? Why are you taking my cell phone that rang while Fred Couples was trying to putt???"

Folks, I agree that as a norm you should not have your personal property confiscated. I agree rules should be posted and obviously so. I agree your property should be returned to you promptly and courteously. But posts like the one I'm quoting above just show how a lot of people think. It's them mean old cops and it is NEVER that I screwed up, I missed the sign posting the rules, or I failed to read the disclaimer on the back of my ticket, or the original story included all the details that make the poster seem the victim, with none of the details that would have told a whole different story (and no, I'm not saying that's the case).

It's always the cops fault first, and the cop had to be a dumbbutt and not know the rules, and he had to be overstepping his authority, and I'm a victim so wah, wah, wah.

Call 1-800-wah freaking wah.

In the meantime, I, and those like me, will keep trying to do our job and put up with such nonsense.

JMHO.

http://www.texasgeocaching.com

"Trade up, trade even, or don't trade!!!" My philosophy of life.

[This message was edited by Breaktrack on May 13, 2003 at 06:28 PM.]

[This message was edited by Breaktrack on May 13, 2003 at 06:31 PM.]

Geez, how many times did you have to edit THAT one? Tell us how you REALLY feel....

Yes, it was the security guard's fault that he was UNINFORMED as to what was and was not on the "Prohibited items" list of the park. (Please notice I said "security guard", not "cop"). I know the difference. The problem here is that apparently HE didn't.

You wrote:

"It's them mean old cops and it is NEVER that I screwed up, I missed the sign posting the rules, or I failed to read the disclaimer on the back of my ticket, or the original story included all the details that make the poster seem the victim, with none of the details that would have told a whole different story (and no, I'm not saying that's the case). "

What's that about? Okay, we are still talking about the amusement park incident, right? He DIDN'T screw up THIS time, there was NOTHING to read about GPS units, either on the back of his ticket or in the park rules. I agree that if there IS a rule posted, and you ignore such rule, then you should have whatever is "prohibited" kept for you until the time you are ready to leave, or given the option of leaving with the item at once.

Okay?

This time, it MAY HAVE BEEN an uninformed security guard who probably found out he was wrong to flex his "might" over a GPS, but then didn't want to be seen as being wrong by flip-flopping on the matter, so he continued to press the issue..

How many times have you seen a security guard overstep his authority? Probably too many times, and then the real police have a bigger mess on their hands.

As far as the golf tourney, what was that point for? They failed to adhere to the rules, and they should have had their cell phones and the like confiscated. In fact, they should have been escorted out right there, especially if they were inebriated. I don't have a problem with that and I agree with the confiscation of those items without pause. That really had nothing to do with this line of discussion, as the offenders were breaking POSTED rules. The instance that we were discussing involves NO posted rules banning the item mentioned.

I think we have seen a deeper issue working here. You are so quick to find absolutely no fault with the actions of the park security, and I find that a little disturbing, given the severity of the actions taken over a simple GPS unit, for God's sake. The only nonsense in this thread is the "Protect our own, don't cross the Blue Line" mentality being shown in your reply towards the security guards.

1.7k · May 14, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by TEAM 360:
on the "Prohibited items" list of the park. (Please notice I said "security guard", not "cop"). I know the difference. The problem here is that apparently HE didn't.

Maybe he knows the difference and you don't. There's a reason they call it the Cedar Point Police Department, and it's not because they have an ego problem.

2.3k · May 14, 2003

My mistake, then...now we are talking...are these guys regular cops, earning extra money by working their off hours at Cedar Point? Or are they acting as security guards, who happen to be off-duty cops? Or are they a special division of full-time cops, on regular shifts and patrol, stationed at Cedar Point? If they are regular full time cops, then that makes it even WORSE. They need to review the park rules on what IS and what is NOT prohibited. "Ignorance is no excuse"....how many times have you heard that one coming from the cop that just pulled you over? Goes both ways.

[This message was edited by TEAM 360 on May 14, 2003 at 09:13 AM.]

1.7k · May 14, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by TEAM 360:
Or are they a special division of full-time cops, on regular shifts and patrol, stationed at Cedar Point?

That one.

And I agree, they should know the rules of the park if they're going to enforce them.

1.2k · May 14, 2003

Okay, I guess I just misread the part where we were "whoring" ourselves out working for the park? That sort of set off my "I hate the police" alarm. So if my replys became a bit strident, I apologize. I don't normally "tow the line" when everyone involved in the discussion stays reasonable and does not "assume" those in authority were in the wrong right from the git go. In this particular thread it started out with very limited information about an incident yet there are those who took right off with the "bash the officer" line of reasoning. So, maybe you can slightly understand why I might buck up a bit, eh?

On the other hand, I am willing to concede the point that something was handled poorly in this incident. Seems like if from what we know. The golf tounament analogy was with regard to the confiscation of property at such an event or park as some were stating this cannot be done when it can. Enough said there.

And my editing? Sorry, sometimes my fingers go faster than they should when I'm typing... I found several typing errors, only I didn't find them all at the same time....lol. Corrections have been made.

All in all, this has been an extremely interesting discussion and sometimes I do just enjoy playing the devil's advocate, it tends to shake things up and exposes some folks paranoia. But it's all in good fun and in the spirit of discussion. Thanks.

"Trade up, trade even, or don't trade!!!" My philosophy of life.

May 14, 2003

Breaktrack - Thanks for the above post. I couldn't have said it better. After 30 years on the job, I know there are ALWAYS two sides to every story, and it is always good to get all the info before jumping to any conclusions (it can be quite embarrassing to "unarrest" someone). I think if all of the facts are as indicated, the officer did over react. I learned long ago that it is best to treat people with respect, as I mentioned in my previous post (REALLY, REALLY tough with child abusers those six years I was in our juvenile unit). Leads to a lot less problems and almost always leaves the other party with at least respect for an officer, even if they are still not necessarily happy with what happened. One officer I work with actually had one of our local felons cover his back one night when he responded to a bar fight, because that officer had always treated him properly in the past. That is the way I try to leave the people I deal with feeling about me. So, yeah, the officer probably did over react, and hopefully will learn from the experience.

Catcher24

"You see, you spend a good deal of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time." Jim Bouton

May 15, 2003

quote:
After 30 years on the job...

Curious to know, how did "on the job" become synonymous with being a cop? I'm on the job. Just not THAT job.

Ok, ok. I'm just being a jack@$$.

May 15, 2003

Yes, General, you are.

Catcher24

"You see, you spend a good deal of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time." Jim Bouton

May 15, 2003

In any case, I actually am curious about that. That part wasn't just goofing.

It has also been my experience that cops have little to no sense of humor. No gray area. All by the book. Black and white only. Seriously. I'm not trying to get a rise, this has actually been my observation. Any thoughts?

1.2k · May 15, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by General Bracket:
In any case, I actually am curious about that. That part wasn't just goofing.

It has also been my experience that cops have little to no sense of humor. No gray area. All by the book. Black and white only. Seriously. I'm not trying to get a rise, this has actually been my observation. Any thoughts?

Yup, it's been refered to as being "on the job" for a long time. It really isn't meant for you, it's a thing among us. Those that overhear it or read it are meant to be confused and curious. You pass.

On the humor thing, is it just cops that are around you that seem to have no sense of humor? If so, then maybe it's just you? LOL.

On the other hand, maybe that is just the side of us we choose to allow you to see. Mainly because our sense of humor runs to the macabre for the most part. When we are just around a bunch of other cops, we are some funny mother truckers.

Trust me, would this face lie?

"Trade up, trade even, or don't trade!!!" My philosophy of life.

May 15, 2003

General - In addition to what Breaktrack said above (among us "on the job" is understood), I put that down because the previous five or six posts referred to police and it just seemed to me to go with the flow. Perhaps in the future I should not assume that everyone has read all of the previous posts, and be more specific. As to sense of humor, some of the funniest people I know are cops (although, as track mentioned, the humor does tend to be a little distorted; but hey, how much human misery can you see without getting a distorted perspective?). As Breaktrack said, perhaps the problem lies somewhere other than with the cops when you happen to observe them being less than hilarious.

Catcher24

"You see, you spend a good deal of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time." Jim Bouton

2.3k · May 15, 2003

I know you call it "on the job" because it is a way of life, not just 9-5er type of work. It certainly isn't a lifestyle that I would choose to do. There is a lot of BS and dealing with things you wish you didn't see. In that respect, I admire the stamina and fortitude that they have, to be able to deal with it day after day. They don't make enough money, in my opinion. When my brother died, he lay in his room for 4 days. I can only wonder about the horrible image left in the cops mind when he entered the room to take pictures. I am grateful to have been spared from that. Sometimes it is better to NOT know. So thanks to cops who deal with that.

[This message was edited by TEAM 360 on May 15, 2003 at 07:05 PM.]

May 15, 2003

Sorry about your brother, no matter how long ago it was. It's bad to deal with those things, but I always feel for the family, too. Funny you should bring this aspect up - my former partner, working our fire investigation unit, recovered body of a young girl killed in a fire here recently (three kids total died). He had a nervous breakdown - guess just one too many, because he had seen plenty of the same previously. Hey, thanks for the post, and happy caching.

Catcher24

"You see, you spend a good deal of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time." Jim Bouton

May 15, 2003

Deleted. No point.

Happy caching!

[This message was edited by General Bracket on May 15, 2003 at 05:27 PM.]

1.5k · May 19, 2003

If the park is private property. It does not matter that they open it up to the public. The owner or manager of the property can ban any device they want for any reason.

May 19, 2003

quote:
If the park is private property. It does not matter that they open it up to the public. The owner or manager of the property can ban any device they want for any reason.

It was always more so the fact that they demanded the device. You can't convince me where that line of reasoning came from. I would put myself in the if you want it you'll have to arrest me or physically fight me for it. I have no problem leaving the park but you’re not getting my GPS. Let the other sheep do as they please.

quote:
We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
George Orwell

1.2k · May 19, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by TEAM 360:
I know you call it "on the job" because it is a way of life, not just 9-5er type of work. It certainly isn't a lifestyle that I would choose to do. There is a lot of BS and dealing with things you wish you didn't see. In that respect, I admire the stamina and fortitude that they have, to be able to deal with it day after day. They don't make enough money, in my opinion. When my brother died, he lay in his room for 4 days. I can only wonder about the horrible image left in the cops mind when he entered the room to take pictures. I am grateful to have been spared from that. Sometimes it is better to NOT know. So thanks to cops who deal with that.

[This message was edited by TEAM 360 on May 15, 2003 at 07:05 PM.]

This is a great response and I'm impressed with your post. You have hit the nail on the head my friend. It was over 15 years ago now but I still remember working a suicide on Christmas day when I was still a rookie. I remember wondering how a father could do that to his family on any day, much less on Christmas. I've seen a lot of things and had to deal with a lot of situations, and working in a small town it soon became the rule rather than the exception that I knew all the people involved in every incident. That's why I moved to the big city of Houston, it just got to close and too personal too often.

Gallows humor helps a bit, but it's still difficult. Thanks Team 360, after reading your post I actually feel a little better.

(Now, if my feet just didn't hurt after a 12 hour side job on Saturday, and a 12 hour side job on Sunday... and standing in the Harris County Sheriff's Office Memorial Service this morning for two hours....sigh)LOL.

"Trade up, trade even, or don't trade!!!" My philosophy of life.

1.4k · May 19, 2003

The definition of TOP in the State of Alabama:

Section 13A-8-2

Theft of property - Definition.

A person commits the crime of theft of property if he:

(1) Knowingly obtains or exerts unauthorized control over the property of another, with intent to deprive the owner of his property; or

(2) Knowingly obtains by deception control over the property of another, with intent to deprive the owner of his property.

(Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, §3201.)

So.... had this happened in Alabama it would not have been TOP, due to the fact that there was no unauthorized control (since it was private property) and there was no perception. Granted, I'm not a lawyer, just someone way down on the food chain of the legal system, but if I was called by someone who had their GPS confiscated by park officials I would have had to explain to them that, as I view it, no laws had been broken. I would go ahead and offer to do a written report for them (well, actually we have to do written reports on all calls). Odds are, this report would be scanned and digitized and never seen again by anyone.

Anyways, that's just my two-cents worth on the subject. Happy geocaching!

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

If you hide it, they will come....

1.4k · May 20, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by TEAM 360:
for _____'s sake...

Was that truly neccesary?

--------

trippy1976 - Team KKF2A

Saving geocaches - one golf ball at a time.

2.3k · May 20, 2003

Maybe.

[This message was edited by TEAM 360 on May 20, 2003 at 08:14 AM.]

May 20, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by trippy1976:

quote:
Originally posted by TEAM 360:
for _____'s sake...

Was that truly neccesary?

At least he capitalized it.

2.3k · May 20, 2003

ROFLMFAO!

1.6k · May 20, 2003

Never mind about the charges against the officers. I think it would have been closer to robbery, but the point is moot. You don't have to give up property just on someone's say so.

If I had been in GOT GPS's postion, I would have politely told the officer than no I wasn't going to give him the unit. Yes, if that's the case then I will leave.

I would have made note of the officers' names and written a tactful, but firm, letter to whoever is in charge of both the officers and the park, letting them know how I felt.

CR

May 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by trippy1976:

quote:
Originally posted by TEAM 360:
for _____'s sake...

Was that truly neccesary?

--------

trippy1976 - Team KKF2A

_Saving geocaches - one golf ball at a time._

http://www.mi-geocaching.org/

Sheesh, If I were Pete, I'd be offended at the use of my name without permission....

1.4k · May 21, 2003

I know! Poor Pete.

--------

trippy1976 - Team KKF2A

Saving geocaches - one golf ball at a time.

May 21, 2003

My two cents' worth:

A rent-a-cop (as opposed to a real police officer) at a place like Cedar Point has the authority to remove YOU AND your property from the premises. He does not have the right to separate you from your property; that's theft.

A real, duly authorized police officer can get away with just about anything he wants, which is why most of them here in Atlanta drive 90 MPH when headed for the donut shop, but pull citizens over for 67 in a 65...

--

Scott Johnson (ScottJ)

May 21, 2003

I had a chance to discuss this GPS issue today with 3 Cedar Point cops and they said there was no policy in effect concerning GPS units.

Zaarenoc

Sandusky, Ohio

2.3k · May 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by zaarenoc:
I had a chance to discuss this GPS issue today with 3 Cedar Point cops and they said there was no policy in effect concerning GPS units.

Zaarenoc

Sandusky, Ohio

Well, the lawyer door is now open...

May 21, 2003

Instead of belaboring this issue on the bulletin board why doesn't everyone send a nice email to park management asking for an apology? We certainly have enough numbers to threaten a boycott!

Wherever you go, there you are!

May 21, 2003

if confronted by an "authority figure" in a manner that will not cause harm to you, but you feel wronged... take a moment and ask for a supervisor to come to the scene, or a nearby location if need be. take it from there.

anytime you are confronted by an officer of the law.. maintain a cool head. many states have laws in place that do not allow your physical resistance (i know you won't like this one) even if you are right.

there are avenues you can follow in the event of a miscarriage of justice. always maintain a cool head.

as to the case at hand... i wouldn't even begin to attempt to analyze the events leading to, or the outcome. only one person here experienced the confrontation. i'd love to hear both sides though. i don't doubt Gotgps at all, but there probably is another person with a different perspective.

i deal with altercations so many times a week you couldn't imagine. i can assure you that some people walk away feeling wronged. i, like all other Law Enforcement Officers, am not even close to perfect.

do some research and talk to the police at the park. find out where this is going. maybe you can explain the device and its use, and do some good for geocaching and gps'r use. i am quite certain some posters could make something good out of this.

scottj - unprovoked and uncalled for. but.. i'm probably wasting my time on that one.

TTFN

robbie

A family that Geocaches together... eventually gets wet.

required reading

My first bible

May 21, 2003

I don't that there is a theft in this case either. There does seem to be some degree of misjudgement on the part of the officer. I too would love to hear his perspective. 20 years of Law Enforcement always makes me skeptical of these types of stories.

I liked the 1-800 wah wahh thing!

May 21, 2003

i will document any response.

i am curious what response i will recieve.

if i recieve a negative reponse.. i will ask a few opinions, and attempt to educate the official as to the "good" uses of the GPSr.

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

to whom it may concern,

i am writing to inquire about the possession, and use of a GPSr (Global Positioning System Reciever) within the confines of your park. the unit is used to orient oneself in relation to a map, displayed on the face of the unit. the GPSr will be secured inside of an article of clothing while on any rides within the park, as a cell phone or wallet would be.

web sites detailing the use of a GPSr:

GPSr manufacturers:

GPSr Uses:

Explanation - Global Positioning System:

www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/notes/gps/gps_f.html

any additional information required, feel free to email or phone me.

thank you in advance,

rob xxxxxxxxx

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

A family that Geocaches together... eventually gets wet.

required reading

My first bible

May 23, 2003

i emailed information at cedar point and asked if a gps could be possessed or used at the park.

i included:

-that the unit would be secured in clothing like a wallet

-reasons for use

-sites that provide info on use

-manufacturers sites

-GPS explanation

my original post of the email i sent was deemed no good for this site, because i put the name of another site in it.

response from cedar point.

i will call.

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

Hi Rob,

Thank you for your interest in Cedar Point.

Cedar Point Security would like you to leave the

GPS unit in your car while you visit the park.

If you have any other questions about Cedar Point,

please call our Information Line at 419-627-2350.

Judy Smith

Information Specialist

Phone: 419-626-0830 ext. 2908

E-mail: cpinfo@cedarpoint.com

A family that Geocaches together... eventually gets wet.

required reading

My first bible

2.3k · May 23, 2003

Well, now we have the security people themselves saying there is no problem with it, and an "Information Specialist" saying leave it in the car, with still no written official policy on it. Very confusing that the two different representatives of the same park are offering two different sets of "rules".

May 23, 2003

i checked with a few security advisors in NYC (corporate type security), and found most to be in agreement with me when given all of the facts. they would be inclined to stop and question an individual on the property they are protecting if they saw the person monitoring and marking a GPSr. it is plain and simple basic security. once given a reason for the use of the GPSr they would make a determination wheter or not it could be USED. i say USED, because POSSESSION and USE are two different things.

the removal of the GPSr is a drastic step.. within most states laws.. that has to be a determination of the officer involved. the unit would have to be returned at a reasonable point (let's not debate the reasonable point issue.. way too complicated.. the simple part is officers discretion.), and if it violates rules of the establishment - you may be ejected, or asked to leave.

these are all opinions of security professionals that provide a service to organizations.

it seems education and familiarization of the GPSr is the key to getting public sector security and municipal police to accept the use of our devices.

several other police officers i spoke to would stop and question a "suspicious person" with a GPS around our bridges, tunnels, national monuments, and public gatherings. we are embracing thousands of sailors on many ships this week in NYC, and with a high level terror alert.. the few i asked stated they would most definitely stop an individual based on this. once again, the removal of the device would be another matter. many factors would have to be looked into before permanent removal for investigative reasons. return of the item would be based upon many factors.

if every person understood the reasoning behind a law enforcement officers decisions, and all law enforcement officers understood every persons actions.... i think we would have UTOPIA!! will it happen... highly doubt it.

it is human nature to question... just do it with tact.

robbie

A family that Geocaches together... eventually gets wet.

required reading

My first bible

May 23, 2003

Ok, in order to satisfy both the police and management we'll take 2 GPSr's; leave one in the car and take the other one in with us

May 24, 2003

we apparently have the following two esclusionary statements....

quote:
Originally stated by Peggy Bertsch
Director, Training and Development:

We do not have a policy concerning GPS units.

and then this one:

quote:
Originally stated by Judy Smith
Information Specialist:

Cedar Point Security would like you to leave the GPS unit in your car while you visit the park.

Me thinks these two need to get their heads together & figure out what ehether there is or is not a park policy and what that policy is. I'm emailing them both, telling each of them what the other said, let these 2 numbnuts come up with some answer.

Apparently it's exactly like it is as my job, (and most organizations: ask 20 different people what the company policy is and you'll get 20 different answers.

5.3k · May 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by morrillb:

quote:
Originally posted by Johnnyvegas:
This just another example of the Goverment taking away more rights. This entire homeland security BS is just a way to take away the rights of americans. But of course, we keep sending the same jerks back to congress, so I guess we deserve what we get.

Cedar Point is now the Goverment? WOW, when did that happen?

Bil

The post before mine mentins they are "Real Cops"

Real cop=Government

BTW- you have not sean our rights being taken away?

My GPS V was taken from me today.

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment