Jump to content

Geocaching, Dc, & The Fbi


traeumer

Recommended Posts

I agree that we can look pretty unusal walking around staring at electronic devices and turning over old logs in the woods. So I can understand when a cop might want to ask a few questions, but after giving my name and a brief explanation of what I'm doing, I expect said officer to leave me alone. And in most cases that will happen. A few minutes is all it should take. But they do not need to ask me my life story. And they do not need to be holding me prisoner while they run my name through the system. I did nothing illegal, and I should not be considered a suspect for a crime that has not been committed.

Link to comment
Didn't you just take the easy way out?

 

Huh?

 

I wasn't there when the OP was supposedly questioned and I'm not gonna 'Monday morning quarterback' what happened. We only have one side of a story so how can anyone really say what happened.

 

As far as taking the easy way out.... get real. I was simply trying to keep my post quasi-on-topic in regards to geocaching. Basically, if you are wandering around in sensitive areas in Washington, DC with electronic devices the odds are higher than a normal tourist that you might be questioned as to your actions. No harm, no foul. Happy geocaching!

Link to comment

I got a headache reading this thread.

 

My emotions got all churned and twisted up. I'm not sure if the OP's liberties were violated or not, but I also like the idea someone is watching out for things. The only thought I can think of that makes sense to me and makes me feel better about the whole situation is:

 

Why don't we all just cache in the woods....like the way it use to be?

 

Salvelinus

Link to comment
... I'm not sure if the OP's liberties were violated or not, but I also like the idea someone is watching out for things.

...

Why don't we all just cache in the woods....like the way it use to be?

I completely agree. I think the argument can be made either way regarding the OP's rights. Certainly, if his rights were not violated, the agents came very close to doing so. To me, it hinges on whether a reasonable person would have felt that he was free to leave.

 

I also appreciate that the FBI (or whoever) is out there looking for suspicious activity. I would not mind so much if I was the one being questioned in the scenario, but the questioning should be brief. Beyond that, if they think I'm suspicious, they can follow me around. If I'm looking for an urban micro, they are welcome to take a look inside if they want. On a hard one, I welcome their help in finding it. :unsure:

 

I also miss the time when most caches involved a short hike. Some of my favorite threads have been those that asked 'What has geocaching done for you?' Many of the replies were stories about pounds lost and improved stamina. :unsure:

Link to comment
I also appreciate that the FBI (or whoever) is out there looking for suspicious activity. I would not mind so much if I was the one being questioned in the scenario, but the questioning should be brief. Beyond that, if they think I'm suspicious, they can follow me around. If I'm looking for an urban micro, they are welcome to take a look inside if they want. On a hard one, I welcome their help in finding it.

Woo hoo! The point! You got the POINT after all! :unsure:

Link to comment
Oh, good. Now I don't value my rights. :unsure:

 

I love how people see what they want to see on forums, and 'hear what they want to hear.'

If any of them violate someone's eggshell-fragile rights, great and fine -- apologies can come later, after his duty is performed.

 

If your intentions are good and you don't have an outstanding warrant, what's the harm? The safety of the public comes first -- and THAT is their job.
Link to comment
They don't have a problem with being asked questions, and neither do I.

 

Just because you don't value your rights does not mean that it is ok for the rights of others to be taken.

 

Edit: <Deleted content>

 

You answered my thoughts while I was posting. I deleted my questions to you as they are now unnecessary.

 

Salvelinus

Edited by Salvelinus
Link to comment
I don't want to be PC about it either. But instead of bothering people who are citizens and not doing anything wrong other than looking strange, why don't we stop letting in people from areas of the world that historically has been a breeding ground for terrorists.

 

I have lots of issues with immigration. We probably shouldn't go there.

 

Still, I don't know if this is a good statement. You're saying that to keep our rights, we should violate another person's rights because they happened to have been born in a certain area of the world? I'm sorry, but that's just wrong.

 

Statements like that are what make people like me sick to my stomach.

 

Besides, where would you draw the line? Iraq, Afghanistan? Lebanese people have never blown up buildings, but they're still considered Middle Eastern. Should we not let them in, too? Jamie Farr isn't a terrorist, should we treat him like one because he has that ancestry?

Link to comment

A few quick thoughts after lots to think about in this thread.

 

A good friend of mine is a "plane spotter" -- his hobby is photographing planes, and collecting and trading the photos with other spotters. After 9/11, he had a number of bad run-ins with law enforcement (it doesn't help matters that while he is a U.S. citizen, he is from Albania).

 

I have to admit it, although I'm not proud --part of me would always wish he would just stop going to airports. It seemed to me like he was just taunting the police and asking for trouble.

 

But when the same thing happens to geocachers, it hits closer to home. I'm sure people who don't share our hobby who hear about incidents like this think we should just stop rocking the boat. But now I have the same answer as my friend -- why? Why should we be timid about doing absolutely nothing wrong? This is not, after all, Albania.

 

I grew up knowing that I had nothing to fear from law enforcement as long as I had done nothing wrong. Is that still true? Are children growing up today getting that same message? Or are they being brought up to fear having even the appearance of the suspicion of wrongdoing?

 

I liked the post that said that our freedom is not ours to give up. It is part of the American legacy, and it's our responsibility to leave it to the next generation in the same or better shape than we received it from our folks (the cache in trash out principle of patriotism :unsure: )

Link to comment
Are you SURE the Jamie Farr isn't a terrorist? Maybe someone should ask him. :unsure:

 

I think the argument that was being made was that perhaps immigration should be limited, not that all citizens of certain ethnic backgrounds should be sequestered.

My point was: Where Does It Stop?

Link to comment
Here's a news flash for you -- my wife is from India, but is a US Citizen.  So to quite a few people, she "looks like a terrorist."  So do my inlaws.  I would wager that I get questioned at random five times more frequently than the average joe (The Alabama Rambler excluded) because of that.

Wow. Talk about racial profiling...

I guess being a geocacher with a middle eastern look could be a pretty bad combination...

They don't have a problem with being asked questions, and neither do I.

Well, I do have a tremendous problem with people being asked questions because of their ethnic origin.

Edited by as77
Link to comment
I think the argument that was being made was that perhaps immigration should be limited, not that all citizens of certain ethnic backgrounds should be sequestered.

I believe that many of the 9/11 hijackers were in the US on various form of short-stay visa, not as immigrants of the "hopefully one day they'll become citizens" kind. After all, most were Saudi citizens, and the Saudis are apparently the good kind of hand-chopping theocracy, unlike the bad kind in Iran, so they're our friends and we can give their kids flying lessons.

 

Besides, quite a few of the terrorist suspects (that one hears about, at least) seem to be recent converts to Islam, and in some cases they look like pretty average (often white and middle class) American or British kids. OK, Richard Reid (the shoe bomber) looks weird - although the press never seem to release the high-school graduation pictures of arrested people, you always get the wild-staring-eyes version even if it's just that one time he went to a Marilyn Manson concert.

 

Even the UK's Guantanamo suspects (and let's presume for a minute that some of them may have been guilty of a crime, although why in that case they were released without charge is another question) were typically from second-generation families, had gone to British schools, etc.

 

The FBI also have to protect people from domestic terrorism and general wackjobs. Until 9/11 this was probably top of their list. I can imagine they were profiling ex-military types with short hair and electronic gadgets pretty heavily then, and I suppose there's still a unit or two devoted to that issue, which hasn't gone away (anthrax, anyone ?).

 

BTW, on 9/11 not all that many people danced in the streets in Middle East countries. Many, many residents of Damascus or Amman will have been glued to their TV and wondering whether their 2nd cousin in New York took that job in the WTC or not. However, the TV news only showed the ones that did dance in the street. Beware of assuming that because something is on TV, that it's widespread, important, or representative. In most cases, it's none of those - that's what makes it "unusual" and hence "interesting" and hence "a good story".

 

Nick

Link to comment
Still, I don't know if this is a good statement. You're saying that to keep our rights, we should violate another person's rights because they happened to have been born in a certain area of the world? I'm sorry, but that's just wrong.

 

Statements like that are what make people like me sick to my stomach.

 

Besides, where would you draw the line? Iraq, Afghanistan? Lebanese people have never blown up buildings, but they're still considered Middle Eastern. Should we not let them in, too? Jamie Farr isn't a terrorist, should we treat him like one because he has that ancestry?

Yes the statement was aimed at immigration.

 

I am willing to say that yes things are different today and that things have changed. But for the life of me I don't understand why that means that it has all of a sudden become OK to infringe on the rights of US citizens.

 

No US citizen was involved in the events of 9/11. So why is OK that we have to give up something first? I am not real sure that someone that was born in any other part of the world has a right to come here. We know where these people were from yet we continue to allow people from that part of the world to come here. Sorry, that is just not making sense for me. Place the burden on those people before you place it on your own citizens. Make them jump through a lot of hoops before you allow them in. The process should be very long and very involved. And if you do finally let them in keep track of what they are up to and where they are.

 

And yes I would include those countries you mentioned and add Syria, Jordan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman just to name a few. There is no doubt that those countries and their borders allow terrorists to operate, train and conduct whatever other business terrorists do. Again no I don't mean everybody there but that is where they are and at this point that is all we have to go on.

 

I have issues with immigration too but I don't think not wanting to go there solves the problem. We like to pretend that we want to welcome everyone here but yes some things have changed and the times are different. I just prefer to see the rest of the world understand that and not always have to have the US be the only one that ever seems to have to come to grips with that.

Link to comment
I am willing to say that yes things are different today and that things have changed. But for the life of me I don't understand why that means that it has all of a sudden become OK to infringe on the rights of US citizens.

 

No US citizen was involved in the events of 9/11. So why is OK that we have to give up something first? I am not real sure that someone that was born in any other part of the world has a right to come here.

Okay, a few questions.

 

Can you tell who is a citizen and who is not at a glance, or would you have to ask for identification?

 

Are you 100% Native American? If not, your parents and likely theirs immigrated from somewhere.

 

I'm a citizen, by way of Scotland a century or so ago. I'm sure glad that America's gates were open. After all, this is still the Land of Opportunity.

Link to comment
...to infringe on the rights of US citizens...

 

How do they know if you're A US citizen if they don't stop and ask you who you are?

GeoPirat got stopped here in N'ville for GW2 because he was looking for a cache near the capital building. Germans, last I knew, didn't look like Middle Eastern Terrorists. But he was near an important building with behavior that was suspicious.

 

You know, the longer we typecast Middle Eastern people, the quicker they will get smarter and start having some poor white lacky do the scouting work for them.

Link to comment
Okay, a few questions.

 

Can you tell who is a citizen and who is not at a glance, or would you have to ask for identification?

 

I cannot, but its not really required. All legal residents of the US are afforded these rights.

 

Are you 100% Native American? If not, your parents and likely theirs immigrated from somewhere.

 

I'm not sure how this is on point. The question was whether the gates should still be open, not whether they should have been in years past.

 

I'm a citizen, by way of Scotland a century or so ago. I'm sure glad that America's gates were open. After all, this is still the Land of Opportunity.

 

Here we have something in common. My forefathers also came from Scotland almost 300 years ago.

 

They weren't America's gates at the time, but I'm glad they were open. I'm not so sure that we shouldn't close them a bit more, however.

Link to comment

Demand your rights ask why am I being questioned. If they cant answer you ask for their ID and the name of their immediate supervisor. I have dealt with the men in black in an other life and most are just scared or afaid that something may go "wrong on their watch". just remind them as a U.S. citizen you have the right to question their authority. just make sure you are not tresspassingon restricted or private propery. ask for signage if the property is restricted. (cya) always cooperate to the point of abuse of power. you cannot be questioned without reason. As a geocacher you must remember that you are behaving suspicously and will be treated as such, but dont not let their ignorance impinge upon your rights

Link to comment
Are you 100% Native American? If not, your parents and likely theirs immigrated from somewhere.

 

I'm not sure how this is on point. The question was whether the gates should still be open, not whether they should have been in years past.

It's on point because you carefully omitted this quote from my post above:

 

I am not real sure that someone that was born in any other part of the world has a right to come here. 
Link to comment

There seems to be a lot of talk about rights here. We (and I include myself) have become a "rights" oriented society, much to our own detriment.

 

Don't you know that we are not our own. WE WERE BOUGHT AT A PRICE. And it is only by the grace of God that we live.

 

There is only one way to solve the issues going around in the western world today, you and I must go back to our roots and see that our two countries were built on the standards of the Bible. And we must strive to live as the Bible teaches. I don't care if you are "religious". It doesn't matter if you are a Christian or not, if we all lived the way the Bible instructs this world would be a much better place.

 

LK

Comments and nit-picking welcome.

Link to comment
BTW, on 9/11 not all that many people danced in the streets in Middle East countries.

Yeah, it was always the same clip of twenty-or-so people dancing on the streets with someone offering someone else some yellow pudding or something. :unsure:

Edited by Divine
Link to comment
It's on point because you carefully omitted this quote from my post above:

 

I am not real sure that someone that was born in any other part of the world has a right to come here. 

That was GJ's quote. Your statement appeared (and still does, in my opinion) to disagree with his.

Link to comment

Thanks sbell you saved me some typing.

 

Fly you implied that people born in other parts of the world have some right to come here. I don't think that is the case. There is a difference between a right and an opportunity. America has always been willing to provide the opportunity. My point is that we may to hold off on that until some of this other nonsense in the world gets worked out.

 

And where did the "100% Native American" (Indians in the non-PC world) come from? They are immigrants as well.

 

For the record I am first generation (mother from Germany, father from Norway). I don't think that makes me any different than someone who's family has been here 10 or 100 years. I am an American citizen and as such I think it is my responsibility to concern myself with other American citizen's before those that are not. And if it means we can better protect ourselves by making it harder for others to come in for some amount of time I don't know what is wrong with that. And yes it may not provide any amount of added security. But as long as the government is engaging in feel good exercises then I would feel a lot more secure doing that then all of the other bits of nonsense we have all seen as of late.

Link to comment
...I'm not gonna get in a debate about civil liberties being violated, but ...

Didn't you just take the easy way out? This entire topic hovers around whether rights are being violated and whether we should be OK with it.

 

I do agree with you that you have a hard job. I respect you for doing it, but if you decide its too much, you can get into a different career. I know a guy that was a cop in LA for years. Eventually, he got sick of it and decided to get out. Today, he's an airline pilot and loves his job everyday.

You really should TRY his job, if you think he "takes the easy way out." I've done a ride-along with him, and saw some eye-opening sights, indeed. Not once did he "violate" anyones rights all night! :unsure:

 

I have friends that are Deputies, Police officers, and my best friend is a Sky Marshal. There is NO ONE I would rather have on a plane with me than him.

If any of them violate someone's eggshell-fragile rights, great and fine -- apologies can come later, after his duty is performed. 

 

There is no good reason to violate someones civil rights, we are not living in N. Korea.

 

 

I would much rather a mistake be made and "offend" someone than to be PC about it and another disaster occur.

 

Nothing that is being done now is not going to keep a terrorist from attacking inside the US again. If you think it is, you are very mistaken, it is just a matter of time.

Edited by JohnnyVegas
Link to comment

???? Uniformed FBI agents? Never heard of such a critter unless it was a logoed shirt with “FBI” and maybe Royal Robbins pants. Uniformed USG officers are usually 085 or 083 series and I don’t recall the FBI having any of these guys doing patrols, I could be wrong. The USG also has all kinds of badged, gun toters that have nothing to do w/ the FBI, until I changed jobs, I had USG credentials, badge, gun, body armor and all kinds of other toys and I can’t even spell FBI. :unsure: Might have been another agency.

 

Another question: Was this a custodial interview and did the cacher ever ask he was free to leave?

Link to comment
???? Uniformed FBI agents?

...

Another question: Was this a custodial interview and did the cacher ever ask he was free to leave?

I took it to mean that they were wearing the windbreakers that seam to be in fashion.

 

The custodial issue is the big one. I wonder if they had his license during the twenty minutes of questioning, talking amongst themselves, calling the issue in, et al. If they did, it would be reasonable to believe that one was not free to leave.

Link to comment
???? Uniformed FBI agents? 

...

Another question:  Was this a custodial interview and did the cacher ever ask he was free to leave?

I took it to mean that they were wearing the windbreakers that seam to be in fashion.

 

The custodial issue is the big one. I wonder if they had his license during the twenty minutes of questioning, talking amongst themselves, calling the issue in, et al. If they did, it would be reasonable to believe that one was not free to leave.

A policeman can only ask your name if it is a Terry stop. If it is a Terry stop you cannot leave, you are temporarily detained. There is no question that the OP's case was like this.

Link to comment
???? Uniformed FBI agents? 

...

Another question:  Was this a custodial interview and did the cacher ever ask he was free to leave?

I took it to mean that they were wearing the windbreakers that seam to be in fashion.

 

The custodial issue is the big one. I wonder if they had his license during the twenty minutes of questioning, talking amongst themselves, calling the issue in, et al. If they did, it would be reasonable to believe that one was not free to leave.

A policeman can only ask your name if it is a Terry stop. If it is a Terry stop you cannot leave, you are temporarily detained. There is no question that the OP's case was like this.

True, but a "Terry Stop" usually involves a check for weapons. Also, many times the line when a custodial interview becomes a non-custodial interview is often blurred.

Link to comment
On NPR several months back there was a report on a study of just that. Are people, specifically cops, FPI agents, airport security and others actally able to determine if people are lying to them? Are they able to pick distinguish those who are acting suspicious but are, in fact., doing nothing wrong from those acting suspicious because they are criminals?

 

The results is that these "professionals" were able to do no better that an average person untrained in spotting such things, and those people were not doing much better than random chance.

 

Actually, most of the cops I know can tell when someone is lying to them - their lips are moving!

 

As far as "Not allowing foreigners from country's with a violent history in" (a paraphrase of above posts):

 

Have you read US History? We slaughtered a nation of Indians, took their lands, killed or chased out the Mexicans and took their land. Ancient history? How about we paid the Guatemallan Army to "eliminate" 100,000+ Indians so United Fruit (an American company) could plant fruit farms on their land (ongoing today).

 

Have you read the history of Europe? Does Imperialism mean anything to you?

 

So, by your standards Americans and Europeans as well as all those other nationalities you mention don't belong here!

 

"Make them jump through hoops to prove they are safe to allow to come here!"

Of course, the only way for someone to prove they are a safe risk is to live and die without committing a crime, so the only ones we can safely let in are the dead.

 

My sister met a really cool fellow in Miami - an illegal alien Guatemalan who had literally swum the border and walked to Miami. She went back to Guatemala with him, got married, my family sponsored him here, he became a citizen, lived here peacefully for 25+ years. One of the most honest, hard-working, loving and giving men I have ever met, a great husband and father. Julio is a model American, raised and put my nephew through college after my sister's death.

 

Julio, his sister and my nephew were attacked by their fellow Americans, their house, car and airplane burned, by a White Power group who saw a dark-skinned curly-haired man living in a white neighborhood and decided he had to go. Funny, they couldn't decide why they hated him - some of the graffiti sprayed on the walls called him a "Nigger" and some of it called him a "wetback" - they couldn't decide what he was, just that he was different.

 

Regardless, the graffiti made it clear they'd be back, and that he would die when they came back. They cut the power and phone lines before the attack, so they thought he was home at the time. I am so glad they were with me in Atlanta that day!

 

If denying access to people from countries with a violent past is acceptable, than your slogan should be

Keep America strong - Keep Americans out!

Sheesh.

 

It sounds to me like this whole discussion revolves around America's choice of reactive rather than proactive policing.

 

We don't, historically and as a rule, track suspicious people, keep up with their doings, and try to prevent them from committing a crime. Very very rarely is an arrest made to prevent someone from doing something.

 

We chose a reactive stance - "If you do the crime, you do the time" and pretty much leave folks alone until they become a suspect in a crime that has occured.

 

This reactive stance makes it tough on cops.

 

A man is walking down a residential street, looking hinky and acting out-of-place. A cop stops him and asks for ID, questions his presence. The man hates this, knows he has committed no crime, decides the cops are violating his right to walk down the street, writes the cop's commanding officer, writes the mayor, writes the newspaper, writes in the forums "I can't walk down the street without being harrassed by the police! This is a police state!" Police administration needs to placate the public, fires the cop to show that they won't tolerate harrassment.

 

Police see a man walking down the street, looking hinky and out-of-place. Say to one another "No crime in walking down the street" and leave him alone. As soon as the cops are out of sight the man kicks in your back door and rapes your dog.

You're now screaming "Where were the police! How can this happen? My poor dog isn't safe in my home because the police won't do their job! They SAW this guy and did nothing to stop him!" police administration has to placate the public, show that their cops are on the ball - fires the cops that let the man pass.

 

Talk about a can't-win situation! Glad I don't have to make those kinds of decisions. Have my job, my reputation, my department's image, my life or other's at risk with every decision I make. Wow.

 

Since 9/11 we have chosen a more proactve approach, one that I applaud! Let's do more to identify potential criminals and PREVENT the crime!

 

Can that power be abused? Yes. Will it be? Yes. Will your dog be any safer? Yes.

Link to comment

First of all, you need a bigger dog. :unsure:

 

What you leave out is the middle approach. The police see someone who's acting goofy, they can keep an eye on him. They need not detain him and ask him silly questions that they don't care what the answers are.

 

'Why are you here? Have you been to DC before? When and how many times? When did you get here? Where are you staying? When are you leaving? Have you been to the national archives today?' These are all meaningless questions and are not really any of there business. What if he had been to DC once before, on 9/10. Would that have gotten him arrested?

 

They had obviously been keeping an eye on him for a while. They could have continued to do so.

Link to comment
We know where these people were from yet we continue to allow people from that part of the world to come here. Sorry, that is just not making sense for me. Place the burden on those people before you place it on your own citizens. Make them jump through a lot of hoops before you allow them in. The process should be very long and very involved. And if you do finally let them in keep track of what they are up to and where they are.

This is already happening. It is very hard to obtain a visa for citizens of the countries you mentioned (FBI background checks often taking several months are made) and even after they enter the US, they have to report on where they are and what they are doing periodically (every 30 days for some countries, every year for others; this is called "special registration"). And of course all foreign tourists are photographed and their fingerprints are taken. I don't think this system should be tightened even more.

Link to comment
Actually, most of the cops I know can tell when someone is lying to them - their lips are moving!

 

No that is how you spot a Lawyer or a Poltician,

 

If some cop thinks someone is lying to the when their lips are moving, Those cops should not be cops, more than likely they are thugs in blue

Link to comment
'Why are you here? Have you been to DC before? When and how many times? When did you get here? Where are you staying? When are you leaving? Have you been to the national archives today?' These are all meaningless questions and are not really any of there business.

Exactly. I just don't see what they can learn from the answers to these questions. He was here before once, a week ago or he was here eight times in the preceding 2 years. What difference does it make? These FBI people must be stupid.

Link to comment

There is a slight difference between looking back through all of history and events that are recent and of importance to today's world events. Nearly all nations have conquered or been conquered at some point in their past. It does not mean that that history always has value when trying to consider actions that should be taken in today's world.

 

I don't think anyone here would condone what you described in your story about your sister and her family.

 

In the first scenario you present, stopping and questioning the man will not stop him from walking around the block and then coming back and kicking in your back door. May only slow him down or make him go to a different neighborhood or do it another day.

 

We both agree more should be done to identify potential criminals and stop them before they can act. I think the chances of that happening are much higher if we can stop them at the border than by shaking down people in the streets because they act strange.

 

But to try to bring this all the way back to the start. We are talking about a person who is in an area legally and was being watched and I would assume was never observed doing anything that was not legal. There is no reason this person should have to answer any questions about what they are doing.

Link to comment

I also applaud the proactive approach. The questions asked were all legitimate. I don't think that 20 minutes of my time is to much to give for security or safety. Who knows, maybe that approach has prevented a possible terrorist act. Civil rights violation? I don't think so. 9/11 changed this country forever. I will not forget it!

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...