You obviously don't bother to read entire threads before the urge to spout off becomes all consuming.

Again, you've only shown your ignorance and total inability to argue a consistent point. Compare what you just said

"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.""

With what you said earlier today.

"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!" ]

You yourself said police work for you, and in effect are your "servants". And you have authority over them. But now when it suits you, you claim all people are equal. Sounds great, but you should pick a side and stick to it.

You'll argue whatever is most convenient for you I guess.

"Police State" & "Socialist"? You really need to brush up on your world knowledge.

We've all met many like you, and no matter what is said, you won't change your way of thinking, and will come up with all sorts of excuses when confronted, as you will for your obvious conflict above. We can only speculate the source of your deep rooted internal conflicts.

All we can do is feel sorry for you. And I do.

Wishing you the best of luck
Jim

You didn't answer Creaturecat's question...

Or can you?

I'm afraid I don't follow how this conclusion comes out of my comment?

A police officer chooses to enter his/her profession and voluntarily takes on the position as a public servant. This public servant position is not the same as the "authority vs. subservient" positions you advocate.

If everyone is equal, the question arises about how a society is to deal with individuals who do not respect the equal status of all. People have the right to protect themselves from those (criminals) who do not respect the rights (equal status) of others. The officer's "authority" is a delegation of the power the law-abiding people have to deal with those who violate the rights of others. The officer's "public servant" position, does not make him/her "less-equal" than the other law-abiding citizens in the society. The officer does not have less rights than other citizens.

This should have been clear in my earlier comments if you understand the ideas behind the liberty we celebrate in the U.S. Of course, you seem more interested in calling me "ignorant," than trying to understand the concepts I present in my arguments.

It's called "time" -- I have limited amounts of it and choose to just address the arguments I see as being most significant.

Of course, if you want just a quick example that will "elaborate" on how "Canada is much further along on the road to full 'police state' status than we are here in the U.S." just consider the issue of firearm rights.

If a woman were being stalked by an ex-boyfriend in Canada and wanted a handgun in her home for her protection, it would be virtually impossible for her to get one.

For most places in the U.S. she would have no difficulty owning a very effective tool (a handgun) to protect herself against a violent attack. In many places here, she could carry that firearm with her.

In Canada, her right to self-defense is hindered by the state. The more individual rights are restricted, the closer the country is to a "police state."

Guess that's why there's a whole lot more kids killing classmates. Or the minister I saw on TV not too long ago who shot his own son coming in late thinking he was a burglar. Maybe when everybody has guns it becomes a "paranoid state".

But that's a whole other debate.

I still don't get how limiting guns to those who wish to use them for sport or hunting creates a police state? If the same woman wanted to join a gun club and use it for practice, she's more than welcome to own and possess a handgun in her home. You should do some more research on our gun laws.

I guess you figure any place that doesn't let every Joe on the street carry a gun if they want is a police state. Interesting.

Trust me. I clearly understand your concepts. It seems that you don't get mine, or better yet, have simply failed to read or understand my previous comments.

Clearly, you have a chip on your shoulder for whatever reason. I'll never convince you of anything, because I am what you detest, for no other reason than I wear a uniform. You my friend are a bigot. This is clear from the numerous PM's I've received from others reading this thread.

No sense continuing this any longer. I've made my comments, and those who matter know my nature. I'll not bother to retort any further. If you wish, you may now have the last word.

the skootch!


I wanted to talk to the lieutenant in person but I'm out of town. So I called him, and he said:

I talked to the kids, they told the parents, a neighbor saw me. He described it as the "telephone" game that starts out with a phrase and ends up completely different. The kid got in big trouble for talking to a stranger and was interviewed by the police. The police came out on Sunday for the first call, and I was already gone. He said they did a full search. The parent/grandparents filed a complaint (I think) that the police weren't serious about dealing with the perp in the neighborhood. He didn't know the police had come out a second time and found me, but he made it sound like the neighbors were putting a lot of pressure on the department.

I asked him about being arrested for trespassing if I went back, and in a casual way he said that was just a "threat situation" and I didn't have anything to worry about. :rolleyes: ooookay.

Hi Bill

Kudos to you for following up on the situation in such a professional manner.

Sounds like there were some unreasonable complainants putting the pressure on. Sounds logical from what you said that the "ban" was more a show to pacify the whining complainants. (Some people you can never satisfy) And the fact that the story spread like the "telephone game" simply adds to the previous comments about being unable to gauge what the officers were told. By the time you were spoken to, it had most likely been hugely embellished and blown out of proportion to the police.

Ride on, and ignore the kids.
But don't neglect the Pcar.

Jim

Not jumping on you over this but in Canada hand guns are not limited, they are simply not allowed, or so I am told by my friends in the GWN. Unless you are a law enforcement worker or military, please tell them how they can have a handgun at home?

While you are at it, several of my friends up North got some very good deals on long hunting rifles (Weatherby for example) before the crackdown on weapons. They bought them from the owners in Canada who said that they would rather sell them than live like in a police state and be told how, when and everything else about hot to keep and bear their arms. They sold them at a large loss. Please explain this? They cannot and are pissed at it. I know that you did not make the laws and are just enforcing them but from the posts you have made it sounds like anyone can own a weapon in Canada.

I have lived in Germany for many years. Owned and stored weapons at home, which is very difficult but not impossible. It requires a 2 year schooling to get your hunting license (jagdschein) then a "hands on" test, followed by your buying a safe for storage. Once its inspected by the police selected people are allowed to keep weapons at home. The others must lock them up at the firing range. While this was very difficult to go through (everything in German by the way) it is possible and something that I am told the Canadians and Aussies simply cannot do anylonger. Their Govt has said that they are not to be permitted to own short weapons. This is just giving a license to rape, rob and steal to the criminals IMHO...

Joe A

SHeesh, this thread has gotten stupid, but at least the original problem seems to be defused. Bill, glad to hear things seem to have worked out in your favor.

Glad to hear talking to them worked out.

I have a lot of respect for LEOs. That being said, when I am pulled over or being questioned, I assume that they have ULTIMATE power in the situation, and I have ZERO rights. Sure, I can complain later, but in that moment, I have no control over the situation. "Yes sir" is what I say.

I've lived in "interesting" times with "interesting" people. I've seen some weird stuff happen. I've seen people start spouting about their "rights." And it doesn't end pretty. Doesn't matter if you are in the "right", at that moment, you do not determine right or wrong. They do.

With that attitude I've never had a problem with law enforcement. I cannot say the same for friends of mine who insisted on having things "their" way...

Something about arguing with someone with a badge, police radio (for more friends if needed), TASER and large gun just does not seem like a smart move indeed! I take the same tact and if things get difficult try to get home and then call a lawyer. Being agressive when someone is stopped is almost always going to end badly and not for the LE.

JoeA

I'm sure the officers get tired of hearing about "rights" when they are just trying to their job. It is troubling though that the officers will say things as threats that have no basis in reality, just because they are having a bad day. Ultimately that is why the ACLU and lawyers are a necessary part of the system.

Joe, if you're interested here are two links regarding gun laws in Canada. I think you'll find they're not quite as restrictive as you think. I have no personal knowledge about ownership, but these links might answer some questions.

http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/

http://panda.com/canadaguns/

Kirk

I did not read every post in this thread but can give my $0.02 based on experiance in Florida with some local Sherrifs from a Surveyors perspective.

When it comes to trespassing and land rights your typical officer will not know squat. I was being hindered from entering a parties land due to a property line dispute. I know for a fact I can go over the land even against their will and there is a statute that says so. I had a copy with me anticipating the problem. The sherrif was called and they had no clue what to do but decided I should not trespass on the persons property. They went against the Florida statute that says I can. So much for laws.

My advice to you is not to take anyones advice here. Go online and start researching the property and finding out if it is truly public land. Then research your State, County, and City law to make sure you have the rights to be there. Once you have that covered go to the local law enforcement with what you have learned and explain the situation to them.

It would not hurt to write letters to the homes that border the park pointing them to your rights either.

If you need any help let me know I can probably find info about your earea online. We do all our title research online here in Florida I am sure its the same there.

As was pointed-out early on this thread, people with houses that back up to public vacant land (and in some cases even private vacant land) like to think of the property as "theirs."

It won't surprise me if you are "hassled" by law enforcement again when you return to the area. It's not the kids who are exaggerating things, it is the adults; and I expect, as I said earlier, the officers who gave you the BS about being arrested if you returned, are acquainted with some of the people who live in the neighborhood.

I'm guessing you didn't get the names/badge numbers of the officers who stopped you; when you head back there make sure you have pen and paper so you can make note of who stops you. Dig into it deeper if you're stopped and I'll expect you'll find a connection with the officers and local homeowners.

Jeesh, I'm not sure how I missed this thread. Too bad a couple of you posters have drifted away from the issue at hand and let it denigrate into an argument.

Anyway, Bill, I'm a Prosecuting Attorney here in mid-Missouri. The police cannot on their own make public property off limits to an individual. Only the owner of the land can do that. In the case of public property the owner would be the City, County or State. Then they would have to notify the local law enforcement that you are not to be on the property. In the case of public property you, as an individual, would also have to be notified that you are not allowed on the property. So feel free to keep using the park, but be ready to explain to the cops what you are doing there if they stop and ask you. Polite is always good.

To be brief, your friends are wrong. Check out the links Kirk posted. And, as my Nick' implies, and as is clearly stated numerous times in this thread, I am a police officer. And the paragraph you quoted shows an example of how one can possess a handgun at home...

Jim

The links are good, but glancing over the information in them, I conclude that firearm laws in Canada are even more restrictive than I thought!

Of course, arguing against people who want to blame inanimate matter (guns) for crime is ultimately a waste of time. Deliberate violent acts committed by humans against other humans have been occurring long before firearms were invented. Anyone who believes that "eliminating or restricting guns" will somehow make people "more peaceful" is either naive, stupid, or has some agenda against individual liberty.

The fact that we, in the U.S., have higher crime rates than Canada, is because we are a more violent society than Canada. The fact that Switzerland has a lower crime rate than Canada (even though the Swiss are even more heavily armed than U.S. citizens) is due to the fact that Canadians have a more violent society than the Swiss. Anyone serious about understanding crime and violence in societies isn't going to get an accurate understanding of the situation if they start by "counting weapons." The issue is a lot more complex than that!