Man fined for using metal hoe on beach. Associated Press

[teklord]

An Alabama youth minister was fined $25 for using a metal garden hoe to dig in the sand with his 7-year old son while on spring break in Panama City Beach Florida. The officer told them they could not use metal tools on the beach. The law was adopted after a rowdy 2015 spring break and was designed to protect against sexual assaults.

Bring a plastic scoop?

Tek

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Terry Soloman]

Interesting debate though.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

Interesting debate though.

Yes, it does have ramifications on the hobby. Eg.: what limits should we hobbyists place on ourselves? When it comes to someone objecting to us.

 

[lookindown]

Close the thread, it is a family forum.

Arguments don't mean were not friendly...my biggest arguments are with my friends...about sports, which beach we should go hunt next, etc....Hard to believe people get offended by people they don't even know but I guess it happens.

 

[hvacker]

I can under the rule about metal tools. On a beach where people often have bare feet, a broken piece from a tool could cut.

I can understand the rule of filling in holes because of foot traffic and a hole might be unexpected.
Cops aren't lawyers and their primary job is to keep the peace. If some joker wants to be a pain, the best way to keep
the peace might be to arrest the malcontent.
Lawyers don't know all the laws either.

As for the "devout Christian" claim, it's well known the Bible teaches "All authority comes from God"
That's the premise to why Christians are charged to obey the law. Being a "preacher" doesn't equate to being a "good Christian"
The way one journalist described the preacher as "devout" (as an implied defense for his actions) when they have no way of knowing if he's just another hustler waving his hands around collecting the offering. For the journalist implication, because the preacher is a devout Christian, he couldn't possibly be wrong is worth a chuckle.

One things obvious: The preacher is a slow learner.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....As for the "devout Christian" claim,....

Yes, it is possible he was out of line, having a bad hair day, etc.... It's also possible he fully intended and believed in "doing what you're told", provided, of course, there's a law that says such a thing. And hence possible he was (as the article stated) asking "where is that written?". To which the article says they could not cite any-such-thing.

Is that "out-of-line" ?

It will boil down to how nicely the conversation was going. Ie.: "in your face" "combative", etc... Versus a legitimate kind calm question/discussion. The article does not say either way.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

If it was "legitimate kind calm question/discussion" he wouldn't have been cited, article states he was asked multiple times to cover hole and he refused.

Sent from my P008 using Tapatalk

 

[Tom_in_CA]

If it was "legitimate kind calm question/discussion" he wouldn't have been cited,....

He was cited because he asked for the cite. Which could have been asked for in a non-combative way. Not because he wasn't being kind and calm (necessarily). Isn't that what the article said ?

And BTW, persons have been known to be cited for various things (traffic tickets, etc...) even when not being combative. Hence it is not necessarily a given, that "anyone who gets a citation, was, of necessity "combative" and "in your face".

.... article states he was asked multiple times to cover hole and he refused....

The way I understood that, was that was in direct correlation to his having asked "multiple times" for a law to reference that required such a thing. Again, it would be like if a cop came up to you telling you remove your green shirt, and put on a blue one (because your blue shirt was against the law) you might be inclined to say [and even possibly respectfully]: "uh, is this candid camera? You're joking right?" etc......

Yes it's possible he was a moron. But it's also possible that that another image could have unfolded.

 

[Deft Tones]

IMO, In situation like this a person should not be concerned with what is possible and be concerned with what is probable.

It was probable things would spiral out of control but possible things would not.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

He was cited because he asked for the cite. Which could have been asked for in a non-combative way. Not because he wasn't being kind and calm (necessarily). Isn't that what the article said ?

And BTW, persons have been known to be cited for various things (traffic tickets, etc...) even when not being combative. Hence it is not necessarily a given, that "anyone who gets a citation, was, of necessity "combative" and "in your face".



The way I understood that, was that was in direct correlation to his having asked "multiple times" for a law to reference that required such a thing. Again, it would be like if a cop came up to you telling you remove your green shirt, and put on a blue one (because your blue shirt was against the law) you might be inclined to say [and even possibly respectfully]: "uh, is this candid camera? You're joking right?" etc......

Yes it's possible he was a moron. But it's also possible that that another image could have unfolded.

He was cited because he refused to cover the holes and continued to argue. It is simple, follow LE commands and hire a lawyer if you have an issue.

 

[ScubaDetector]

Tom, where does it say he didn't? Only an idiot asks a Cop to cite the law instead of doing as their told. You take it up with the JUDGE, who actually has the POWER to let you slide, or take your money. RESPECT the police, and they USUALLY cut you slack! I would LOVE to see the police reports on this!

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING Only an idiot asks a cop to site the law instead of doing what they are told?? REALLY?

For those that do not know it yet. I must be an IDIOT!!! So Terry why have none of my SIX citations stuck? Because EVERY ONE OF THE COPS WERE WRONG.

Look everyone, I have a badge and a gun. Nobody better question my authority and everyone better do as I say or else!


LOL Terry, you have a lot to learn.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

scuba, your stories are the stuff of legend. I think it's perfectly fine to NICELY say "where is that written?" or "what is the law?". And sure, later on, from the cop's perspective, he will say "the subject refused my commands" and he "argued". THOSE are the terminologies that get picked up in the news, and the mental picture it portrays, is, yes: Someone combative. It's all in demeanor. And that could go either way depending on who's report you're reading afterward.

For YOUR particular standing-the-ground, I could imagine (from what I know of your persona via your posts and stories) that you were not "in your face" or "combative" in each situation. But ANY failure for a citizen to "jump", when told, can be later defined as "combative" or "arguing". Perhaps the person failing to jump is indeed a moron. And yes perhaps lip service is better. And ironing out "where is that written?" should be done later when you see the cop is not answering your question.

I would not have gone so far as you have gone in your wild episodes. But , if done respectfully (as it appears you did), then a picture painted of "combative" need-not-necessarily be in place.

 

[fongu]

As a minister, he should remember to obey not only God's law, but we are also required to obey man's law. Wonder what his son thinks now? You teach your children to respect the law and if the law is lame or unjust, contact the people who wrote the law and seek a change in the law. If man's law contradicts God's law, then God's law rules. This seemed to be an ego problem and it could have been an opportunity to teach his child proper respect for the law. They are not perfect, but a little courtesy goes a long way.

 

[ScubaDetector]

scuba, your stories are the stuff of legend. I think it's perfectly fine to NICELY say "where is that written?" or "what is the law?". And sure, later on, from the cop's perspective, he will say "the subject refused my commands" and he "argued". THOSE are the terminologies that get picked up in the news, and the mental picture it portrays, is, yes: Someone combative. It's all in demeanor. And that could go either way depending on who's report you're reading afterward.

For YOUR particular standing-the-ground, I could imagine (from what I know of your persona via your posts and stories) that you were not "in your face" or "combative" in each situation. But ANY failure for a citizen to "jump", when told, can be later defined as "combative" or "arguing". Perhaps the person failing to jump is indeed a moron. And yes perhaps lip service is better. And ironing out "where is that written?" should be done later when you see the cop is not answering your question.

I would not have gone so far as you have gone in your wild episodes. But , if done respectfully (as it appears you did), then a picture painted of "combative" need-not-necessarily be in place.

Tom, You are right. MOST my dealings have been non combative. However, after the sheriff took my dive flag last time, I went back under and got a citation for diving without a flag. The officer that threatened to tow my truck. I just told him to go ahead. I will sit here till it's gone. I am VERY polite, but if I get pushed and they are wrong, I have been known to be stubborn.

I demanded a citation one time which I was given. They were wrong and I knew it. I told them I wasn't going to leave unless they gave me one.

I was a cop. I know what they have to go through. Most don't want to spend their time with petty nonsense and a lot of calls are just that. Petty nonsense.

I wasn't there, I have no idea what the demeanor of the priest or the cop was. I won't judge. However, Terry has gone a little overboard in thinking that cops are always right and you always need to do what they say.

Cops sometimes have to keep the peace. Easier to tell a guy with a beat up Ford Exploder he is trespassing than to tell multi million dollar homeowners that he has the right to be where he is. However, when the person with the beat up exploder knows his rights and the law, it gets complicated for the police officer.

But for someone on here to tell everyone just to do as you are told by an officer or they are an idiot? I believe they are out of touch with reality.

 

[Oddjob]

I have a badge and a gun.

Damn when did that happen? last few rants you went on about us you stated you quite.

Welcome back man.

 

[ScubaDetector]

Damn when did that happen? last few rants you went on about us you stated you quite.

Welcome back man.

I was just stating that is what SOME COPS THINK.

I have a badge and a gun. You had better do as I say or else.

I haven't had a badge since 1991. I wasn't a cop that shoved my badge in peoples faces like some do. Ones that do that to me have found out they have a tiger by the tail. However polite, I am firm and I fight back. That can be dangerous and I found out in Detroit a disorderly conduct charge could have stuck. The judge didn't let it go that far before all citations were dismissed.

I wasn't there, I have no clue if the priest was out of line or not. However, if I would have been told the wording of the law and I was indeed breaking the letter of the law, I would have done what I was told. However, just to take an officers word after I know the law? Lets just say I haven't done that yet.

 

[Xraywolf]

What it amounts to is some people [and a few in this thread] have what amounts to a fetish being subservient and unquestioningly complaint with LE officers - Perhaps hoping that by fawning over them they'll get in their good graces and worm their way out of a citation.
Others just the opposite, and a majority I would suspect somewhere in between. For instance, when you get pulled over on the road there is supposed to be a reason for it, they aren't supposed to pull you over on a whim just because they feel like it.
I have been pulled over numerous times for no apparent reason. I comply with their demand to see drivers license, registration and proof of insurance, then I ask why I was pulled over. They will tell you, and some will be visibly perturbed that you had the gall to question them. More than once they flat out lied one guy said I didn't use my turn signal when in fact I did. I saw the cop going in the opposite direction turn around and come up behind me, I figured I was getting pulled over no matter what so when I changed lanes I made sure I used to signal so as not to give him an excuse. I said yes I did, maybe the light is out can I step out and see ? He said NO ! STAY RIGHT THERE ! and wouldn't allow a spot check of my turn signal, he ended up not giving me a ticket for what he claimed I did. [I checked it later, it was working correctly]
Another cop said my daughter wasn't buckled in I said yes she is, he said no she wasn't I said she sure is, my other daughter was right there too and she said yes she is too. She had a bucket of KFC on her lap, I took it and showed she was buckled in and he said well, she wasn't a minute ago, she was standing up ! I was flabbergasted, my little girl just standing up in a moving vehicle when in fact she was sitting on her butt buckled up.
I didn't press it there and call him a liar even though that is exactly what he was, I just said well I'll see you in court then. During the plea bargaining I sure did call him a liar in so many words, and for the bench trial guess what ? The cop didn't show and the ticket dismissed, I was ready to lambaste this guy.

So I am not all for blind compliance and automatic acceptance in all circumstances.

The mayor of this town apparently thinks the beach patrol went overboard as well.


Beach Mayor Mike Thomas, who was a county commissioner when lawmakers adopted the rules, said they were intended to promote safety and prevent crime. He also, however, decried issuing a citation in this instance.

“When we were asking for these laws, (police) were having problems with people getting in holes to hide drug activity and sexual activity,” Thomas said. “People should always be allowed to dig a sandcastle. We want people to come down and do that.”

Youth minister fined for digging sandcastle with family - News - Panama City News Herald - Panama City, FL

The connection between sexual activity and digging holes in the sand is still not very clear to me.

 

[ScubaDetector]

The connection between sexual activity and digging holes in the sand is still not very clear to me.

It is obvious to me Doug. He was using a hoe to dig the hole!!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... if the law is lame or unjust, contact the people who wrote the law and seek a change ....

But this is assuming "there is a law". If so, then sure, everything you're saying applies. But the fellow was asking "what law"? Perhaps he'd have been more than willing (to live up to the moral/Christian mandate) to do exactly as you say. But from what I read in the article, no one could cite "man's laws" .

Recall the candid camera gag where Peter Funt dresses in a ranger uniform and "pulls people over" for breaking the jogging/walking speed limit law. None of them said "yes sir. I'll slow down. I will pay the ticket". Instead they meet Peter with disbelief saying "since when?" and "are you sure that's a law?" etc...... And later, I suppose, they could be deemed "combative" or "arguing". But you can clearly see in the hidden video that they're just shrugging their shoulders in disbelief, talking casually, saying "you can't be serious" sort of conversation.

If they're Christian (since this story involves a "minister"), and they ask "what law?" are they therefore lacking compliance with said doctrine ? I don't think the belief/doctrine you cite disallows someone to engage in casual conversation.

 

[hvacker]

Tom, you might agree that the preacher's words "Where is that written" sounds like a direct challenge to the cop's authority. While I can't know what was in Preacher's mind, my hunch is he knew the cop couldn't come up with chapter and verse and my other hunch is if the cop can't name C&V he was somehow going to re-enforce his challenge.
Same as saying if you can't state the regulation number you LOOSE!
I don't expect a cop to waste time putting to memory all the numbers of all the rules/regulations on the books and nether does any rational person. To be a non-resident Mr.Preacher had no business issuing that challenge because he most likely had no idea if there was a reg/law or not.
If a cop stopped me for speeding in a car I'm not going to demand the cop give me C&V to prove there is a rule about it. Like saying if the cop can't give me C&V I don't have to listen to the cop. Ya, Right!

Were kind of like Will Rogers when he said "All I know is what I read in the papers.
In the report it appears like journalist bias but this actually seems like an exercise in what MDers actions should/might be in a similar situation.
Personally I'll obey the cop regardless of what I think is written.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Good points h-vacker.