[copper]

Whenever topics deal with these types of issues, a lot of people chime in with their thoughts and advice. Often though, a lot of that advice, although provided with good intentions, is misinformed, or simply not good, and potentially more troublesome than the initial problem.

I can give you some credible insight on some of the points you've raised. However, none of us were there, nor do we, or you, have the entire picture to fully understand everyone's perspective. Best we can do is deal with what we've got without assumptions, of which there could be numerous.


"I'd find out first if it really IS public. There's no way in hell they could arrest you if it is and you aren't doing anything illegal or "disturbing the peace." What would they charge you with? "
CSTREIT provided some excellent, level-headed advice, however this last bit can be a problem. You see, "Public Property" is property that is owned and maintained by the municipality or county in which it lies. There is an implied right of open use by all members of the public. HOWEVER, as with all property, the owner and/or agent has the right to limit activities and access to that property. For instance, the placement of signs regarding littering or limiting activities or times. These are direct indications that the public properties still come with restrictions.
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. Specific details of the laws differ with each statutory act, however the principles remain constant. So for the most part, if a police officer tells you not to do something, you're best not to.

Some others provided comments
"if the land is public then you own it just as much as the people who live near it. "
This is simply wrong. The local government owns the land. Not you, not the bordering neighbors. Neither of you actually pay employees and book them to maintain the lands and playground equipment. This is done by the government out of the local tax base. You no more own the public park than you do the public streets. Although we often like to think we own the road.

"All I can say is fight back. Take their badge numbers and names. Demand their supervisor's name. "
"When you have trouble with officers behaving improperly (the officers in this case were completely out-of-line) "
"explain to them that their behavior is unacceptable and that you will be writing a letter that you will request to be made part of their permanent file "
These are all unsupported assumptions based on very limited information, and potentially problematic advice.
What we have is one side of the story, which is very diplomatic and provides some evidence to indicate the opposite of what others believe it was.
Looking at Bill's original information, there is no mention of any problems with the manner in which the police spoke with him, the way they treated him, or that they did anything out of the ordinary. From Bill's own story, he makes it clear that someone "Freaked out" over him speaking with the children. In todays day and age, people can be overprotective to the point of being paranoid. Children and adults alike. We don't know what the children said, or what the parents told the police. What we do know is that someone "freaked out" which would indicate that the information given to the police was much different than what Bill has told us. People embellish, exagerate and assume all the time. Just look at the responses here.
Many here have painted the cops as horrible corrupt abusers of the public, with little to no information. Is it any surprise that even one parent could have done the same and labelled Bill? Happens all the time.

"Return to the park and challenge them to actually arrest you if they threaten to do so again. Essentialy, stand firm and do not give in to their attemped intimidation. "
DON'T DO THIS. Please, for your own sake. You will only look like a trouble maker, and one can only expect that police, when faced with a challenge to their authority in a public forum, and even the slightest ability to do something about it, will. If they told you not to come back and you challenge that, you can bet your bottom dollar they'll call you on it, and you'll be the loser, plus it only makes you look bad, in that you appeared to be looking for problems.


In short, given the limited info we have, there is no indication the police conducted their investigation any differently than any others would. They were obviously called there. We don't know what was said, however it appears it was something which made it necessary for them to look into. This is indicated by the facts that they told Bill they were there because someone called as he had spoken with the children, and that someone, whether it be the same complainant or not "Freaked out". They weren't just passing through and decided to pick on Bill.

As far as their direction to not return to the park, given that they are agents of the gov't they can do this. Is it right? I don't know. What info were they given? We can only guess.

Take CSTREIT's advice and have a civil conversation with them away from the "freaked out" complainants. They can probably shed some more light on it for you, and you can probably do the same for them.

As a police officer, I can honestly say that there are good and bad in every bunch. I've met some fellow cops I wouldn't trust, nor would I rely on or call competent. I've also met those on power trips. They do exist, but there's an equal number of those if not more who don't wear uniforms, and I meet them daily. We all do.

The long and the short is that the majority of citizens, and the majority of cops are honest and fair. To make assumptions and label people without proper facts simply makes one part of the problem.


My very long $0.02
Take it or leave it.

Jim