Super said.....reasonable and mature.....

Hmmmm, been a lack of that around here of late.

As to "Police Officers" lieing and giving a false impression....it's not illegal for them to do so. Many court cases have hinged on officers bending the truth and getting someone to come forward with information that would not have been revealed if Officer Friendly had been straight and didn't imply things....on appeal the courts have sided with the "bent truth" and outright falsehoods.....so DON'T hang yer hat on that.

It IS reasonable for citizens to get the facts and to confront the officer's superiors and suggest that you ain't gonna put up wit dat crap.....an informed citizen ....... is a citizen that prevails....

On the other hand, the officer's interpretation of the situation may be different as to how YOU saw it....

As one who has been in the field and had a citizen call in and beyotch....I've seen from both sides. I, on many occasions (over a 20 year career) have had issues that needed a third party discussion.

Citizens can get heated, gubmint reps see it one way and the citizen sees it another.....

It's a matter of perception.....

Well tomorrow's Thanksgiving, so I think Friday I will scrub up and go down to the police department to see how all this works. I agree cops have tough jobs and not a lot of time - actually it was a lot like when my kids fight, I don't want to know the details, I just want the problem to go away.

There are some reasons this went down the way it did. The woods have been in a state of neglect for years. People dump their yard waste, downed trees, and all sorts of junk. No one has known about these woods before. So I posted directions on two of the local bike boards so maybe some more people will go out, the police will be called, and they'll find out it's not me. :)

I think the best course is to talk to the police on their turf. Meanwhile I can get other people to ride there to establish the trail. I think legally someone would have a point that I shouldn't have chopped two deadfalls out of the way, but seriously the place is nearly a dump, with a lot of vines. In the spring things may be different, especially if more people are using the space as a park. I do have a connection to the city prosecutor (and I'm not a resident of the town, the border is two blocks away) and someone on the parks board, so there are a couple of avenues to pursue.

"The cops said I was not allowed in those woods ever again, I said I thought it was a public space and they said it was, but if I was ever back there again I would be charged with trespassing."

so they're going to charge you with trespassing in a public space? I know guys on crack who make more sense than that.

anyway, if you feel like going on that path again, in a public place, i would go , don't be afraid. If they do anything , then they are certainly violating your rights as a tax-paying citizen.

Crazy world...

I'd ask for the kids to be banned from the park.

Yep....you'd be right. But I would suggest speaking with a Supervisor FIRST as opposed to asserting your rights and ending up in a jail/emergency ward breathing thru a tube.....

Here's my 2 cents...take it or leave it.

Last year (without going into unnecessary details) I was pushing my boy in his stroller down our residential street and was placed in a very unsafe situation by a patrol car who failed to warn me he was rapidly approaching while responding to a call. We were facing the opposite direction.

Send a letter (I used e-mail but that may not work for you) to your police chief; copy the mayor, your city councilmembers (important!) and let them know exactly what happened and what you wish to accomplish. You would be suprised the results you may get when you first avoid taking an adversarial response. I got a reply in 24 hours from the police chief who said he was researching their call logs from that day to narrow down who it was so they could follow up, and I got a phone call from my councilman who said he had already talked with the police chief to get to the bottom of it. Both promised it would be taken care of.

And, for the record, you do not have the "right" to go into a public park property and start clearing a mountain bike trail. I mountain bike, wish you well with your riding, but the residents who border that park have to live there and its up to the city and that council district to decide how that land is used. The residents who border it will always have more pull on that one...get used to it. You may not like it guys, it might not be fair, but that's life.

Good luck.

Or deal with it the all American way. Go back and sodomise the two little boys, blow the cops heads off with the 357 magnum when they come lookin' for yer. And if they catch you, your defence is you were exercising your right to express yourself as an individual.

Isn't that a little harsh coming from a citizen another country?

the point is, why should I spend my time going after the SUPERVISOR, writing letters, etc if I just want to take a walk in a public park?

Because ya pi$$ed off the local officers......unless they were just visiting, they are gonna see you again and most likely thump on yer a$$ until you blow snot bubbles......YOU are wrong until you prove that you are right.

What you think you have a "right" to walk and do what ya want AFTER you have been warned off by guys that have guns and badges????

Think again.

But...hey I could be wrong.....a cynical citizen is a safe citizen.

Havin' a little fun with yer.

K....no worries, eh.

exactly, you are guilty until you prove that you don't have any WMDs.
;)

And you don't really want to have powerful enemys. Cops have been known to do a "Look what I found under the seat" with a bag of dope.

Does anyone else have a problem with this? So, basically cops have the right to just go around beating people that they don't like? Just because they have not proven their case yet? This is exactly why I dislike cops so much. They consider themselves "above" the law. The greatest joke of all time, "Innocent until proven guilty".

Ummm, where did I say they had that right?

I said "most likely".....as one that loves my country, works for Gubmint....I still fear it....one might say I'm paranoid....I say I'm a realist.

In the real world, individuals still wield power and can abuse it....it's the checks and balances that correct the abusers....at least in most cases.

I think there is a lot of collective wisdom in this thread (except for the spandex thing). What you forgot the spandex thing?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1132772975.jpg

I agree. I hesitate to taunt or show up people with guns. After I talk to the gentlemen in the police department, I'm going to talk to the parks board and see if I can be an official volunteer to clean up 20 years of trash in the woods and maintain a trail, perhaps starting in the January when the paranoids will have cooled off a little. That's my plan!

with all due respect to all above.

Every group is a political enviroment. That machine could do all the work and spare headaches and bs if manipulated for what it is.

The complainer homeowner has bs politics of a stranger. The PD has bs politics of a homeowner/taxpayer. The biker has bs politics of the PD & homeowner.

Whatever the scene is it's all the same machine one way or the other. In my town the foot soldiers are called committeemen or committeewoman. They have each a small section of town. The food chain goes up from there.

If he works the system properply they wind up putting out the red carpet every time he even thinks about going for a ride.

There is no right and wrong here for the most part. It's dealing with the systems environment imo.

Does that mean you don't like me?

Just wondering as I like to know who my enemies are...

Jim

It would probably be more fun if you have an attorney friend who would agree that these officers were out-of-line, and would be willing to go for a few bike rides with you in that woods.

When these bozo-officers show up (I'm sure they will, because I'm sure they're friends with someone in that neighborhood) and approach you, saying something like, "I thought we told you that if you showed up here again we'd arrest you! What are you doing here? And who's your friend?"

You reply, "This is my attorney, Mr. John Smith, he's here to witness you arresting me for "trespassing on public land." Seeing your illegal arrest first-hand will help him when he files suit against you for your improper behavior. And to be sure that there is no confusion about exactly what takes place here today, he is currently recording our conversation."

It would be fun to watch their reaction to that!

And I can say with certainty that you do not train U.S. law enforcement officers about the United States Constitution and our court's interpretations of that highest law of our land, and the protections it affords U.S. citizens against law enforcement officers intruding into our lives as we travel in public places!

and your point is...

Do you really think the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are that much different? Have a look, both are available online.

Not sure what I did to put a bee in your bonnet. Maybe it's just the fact I'm a cop, or Canadian, or both.

Current exchange rate on 2 Canadian Cents is 1.7064 US cents.

Depends on if you're buying or selling.
;)

The comments on your first post on this thread demonstrated that you do not understand U.S. law about public property and the limitations of police action when dealing with the public.

I realize Canada is much further along on the road to full "police state" status than we are here in the U.S., but we don't need your misinformation to help us get there any faster.

Yes, I am taking at face-value that "billwagnon's" post is an accurate description of the events as they occurred, but unless what occurred was extremely different than what was described, the officers were completely out-of-line in threatening to arrest the man for "trespassing" if he returns to the area.

Their action of even stopping him is questionable too. If they did have some cause to stop him, based upon the statements made to them by the residents, after verifying his ID, they should have explained that some parents were concerned when the children mentioned that a man was in the woods, then the officers should have apologized for stopping him during his exercise routine.

I don't have problems with police officers per se, I do have problems with officers who do not understand that they work for people like me -- the law-abiding citizens in the community. Police officers are public servants. Your comments indicated you see them as having authority over the public; it is in fact the other way around; the law-abiding public has authority over the officers!

But does an individual have authority over the officers? I think not.

A police officer has no authority to interfere with an individual unless he has "reasonable suspicion" that that individual is engaged in wrong-doing.

And yes, an individual does have authority over an officer. If I call 911 and say I need the assistance of a police officer because someone is breaking into my home, and for some reason the officer who is given the call decides that he doesn't want to bother responding, he will be in trouble. He has taken an oath to serve the public -- that will involve responding to the authority of individual law-abiding citizen's requests for action.

B M A

I give up. What does "B M A" mean?

Competentone;

Thanks for clarifying things for me now.

Your post lacks corroboration and credibility. All you've demonstrated is your ignorance and contempt for authority. It's a shame, but there will always be people like you out there. That's why there will always be people like me.

Tell you what, next time you deal with the police, let them know they work for you, that they're your servant cause you pay their salary. They may just give you back the tenth of a cent that your taxes gave them. Then we'll see how things go from there.

Show us the Statutes you are referring to which would contradict the information I provided.

Simply put;
Put up or shut up.

I have a real big problem with you statement:

"A police officer is an agent of the municipality, county or state, whichever it may be, and therefore acts on behalf of that entity thereby having power over such restrictions. Failing to leave, or returning on property, even public, once an agent or owner has forbidden such an act is trespassing."

In this case, I feel it is utter bullcrap an officer, as an "agent," has power over restrictions without some reasonable cause. Scaring parents hardly meets reasonable cause, in my opinion. If what you say is true, I have lost a lot of respect for law enforcement and those who empower them. Has justice evolved into who complains the loudest?

As I said before, if bill is banned, all users should be banned. Parents won't have to worry about predators when their kids are leashed within their own backyards, perhaps.

Never said they could do so without reason. In fact, if you review my posts, I have stated exactly the opposite.

Only that their position relative to the local government allows them to act in such a capacity. Any officer who does so simply because they're on a power trip and without cause is acting improperly.

Also, we must always remember that there is a big difference between arrestable/chargeable offences and likelihood of conviction once the facts come out.

So basically the cops were wrong, in this instance.

The honest answer is, neither you nor I can say. We weren't there and don't know what information they were told and acting on. There's no way any one of us can definitively say whether they were justified or not. Even Bill, who was there, can't say whether they were right or wrong in their actions, until he can determine exactly what info they based their actions on.

He can say however whether they were right or wrong based on the information he knows of what actually happened.

BUT, the test put to their actions is (both in Canadian and US courts) had the information they were acting upon been correct, would they have been justified in taking the action they had.

Analogous to the following;

Citizen calls police says there is a white male on the corner of X and Y streets with a gun, wearing a black winter coat and a red call cap. The police show up and find Bill on the corner wearing the same clothes but he has just arrived there. They take him down at gunpoint as per procedure and once the complainant tells them he is not the same guy, they let him go.

Since we know it wasn't Bill, we can say the officers were wrong. BUT, we test their actions and can determine that based on the information they were given, their actions were proper and in good faith, therefore there would be no finding of fault on their part, although in essence, Bill was still wronged.

Bill's main point was the seeking of advice on next steps to take. That has been addressed with numerous suggestions and he has chosen his path. The discussion has turned now to the officers' actions with differing views on their conduct.

I still remain on the fence, as I have learned through experience that you cannot, and should not pass judgement without knowing the facts, and give the benefit of the doubt to all persons until the facts overwhelmingly determine otherwise. This is akin to the theory of innocence until proven guilty.

In my experience, there are always 3 sides to every story. One, the other and then somewhere in between is the absolute truth.

OK I am comfortable with, even supportive of, Bill being approached and questioned professionally and courteously by the officers. Especially given that kids were involved. But I am not comfortable with the on the spot banning and the threat of arrest. I suspect that banning would not be enforcable in court .

+1 to Flatbutt1's comments. The judge, jury, convicted theme is overbearing.

Please elaborate: how much further along, and with respect to what?

So you're saying you don't agree with letting the courts determine guilt?

Just about what I would expect from a police officer in a socialist country.

Yes, I do have contempt for people, police officers or not, who believe they have "authority" over other people.

You see, I am a free man; other people are also free; we live in a society where we (are supposed to) respect the freedom of each other. We do not deal with one another in terms of "authority vs. subservient."

In the U.S., the people are sovereign, government officials only have power because the people give them that power.

Yes, there are freedom-loving people like me still in this world; yes there are people like you who want to destroy freedom. It's not a new conflict.