A couple of observations.....first, the "ignorance is no excuse" statement.....that applies to LEOs also. It seems to me that if you're going to cite someone for an infraction, that you should at least know what the law is and how it's interpreted/applied. Second, you're only guilty of something when a judge (and subsequent appeals) says you are. Or you admit to it and pay your fine. A little story that I was a part of.......There was a right angle turn at the end of a residential area. No stop sign because there was only one way you could go. In the future it was going to be an intersection, but, that was still a few years off. One day, a stop sign appeared there with no prior warning. Sure enough, I drove right through it as I had done for many years. Not just one, but, 4 city policemen and their cars were stationed right around the corner where you couldn't see them. They were writing tickets as fast as they could get them done. One officer was directing cars to the curb, the others were busy wearing out their pens. In leaning up against one of the patrol cars and signing my ticket on the hood, (this was before they had to keep them running 24/7) it was stone cold. They had been there all morning and had a stack of tickets over 6 inches high. At least this car did, as, I could see them in the front seat. Anyway, they obviously weren't concerned about our "safety" as the road still hadn't been changed and there still was no need for the stop sign. If they were concerned, they would have stationed a car BEFORE the turn, and with lights flashing to warn us of this :dangerous" situation. No, they were there to write tickets. My friend who lived around the corner from there ran that sign at least 6 times in the next few days before he remembered to actually stop. When he did stop, he looked around and......what the heck..........where is the sign? They had taken it down! Oh, I forgot to mention.....this was the smallest legal sign they could have put up, it was 30 feet back from the corner, 20 feet to the right of the street (in the bushes to the right of the sidewalk), on top of an 10 foot post that was leaning away from the road. We decided to fight this and had our day in court. The day arrives, I'm sitting in the courtroom awaiting my turn. They called someone up, and the judge read the infraction he was accused of. What do you know but it was the exact same one I was accused of. The judge listened to what the guy had to say (basically what I was going to say), reduced the fine a bit, and sent him to the bailiff to pay it. He called the next person up to the box. The judge is reading the infraction, pauses, and says, "Hmmm, this is the same infraction, at the same time and place...." At this point, someone in the courtroom speaks up and says, "yeah, most of us are here for the same reason"! The judge looks up from his papers and asks, "How many of you are here for the same reason"? Over 95% of the courtroom raises their hand! After hearing more details about the signs and that it had been removed a few days later, he sent someone to get the first guy before he paid his fine, and told the rest of us that all charges were dropped. You could tell he was rather disgusted with the way the cops handled it and told them so in no uncertain terms! That drew a cheer from everyone in the courtroom! My point here is this, just because a cop is doing something in the letter of the law, and we were technically in violation of that law, doesn't make it right to impose and enforce that law on us. Intent can work both ways. The minister wasn't intending to break the law, negligent, or, "should have known better". It was a new law that was being enforced without sufficient warning. If metal tools at the beach was such a serious problem, why didn't they erect some signs there (like all the other ones prohibiting smoking, drinking, walking dogs, etc.)? The average person can't be expected to keep up with all the new laws that politicians can dream up. There should be a decent grace period when something is changed from legal, to illegal, and IMO on this case, not even applied when it doesn't make sense to do so. Police officers are supposedly trained to deal with the public. They know good and well that nobody is happy to receive a ticket, and that they're going to question and argue about it. Their job is to explain why they're giving the citation and try to keep the situation calm. Having to call backup on this type of offense, just seems strange and unnecessary with the story as I read it.But, as I and other have mentioned, we don't know the who story, and until we do, we should reserve judgment.
I don't know, what would you guys do? Call those bad cops, let them handle it for you? 
