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 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[ChampFerguson/TN]

The problem as I see it is that there is a dearth of actual facts in the 'news' stories. Unsuprisingly, once again, the msm has gone long on the sensationalism and short on the facts of the incident. That has resulted in most of this thread speculating on the actual facts and the attitudes of the principal players in this drama.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[bigscoop]

Apparently you didn't read the story closely . There was no "ordinance" shown or cited till much later. So that's just the point: They COULDN'T cite any such "ordinance".

So is it "defiance" to say "is there really such a law?". Recall the candid camera stunt comparison (of an equally un-believable supposed "law"). And/or recall the analogy of if a cop comes to you telling you to remove your blue shirt, because it violates the law. You too might be compelled to say "you are joking , right ?"

But sure: if a law/ordinance really exists, then sure, by all means no one should be "defiant". But the way I understood the story, is that the sand-castle persons were not-so-sure a law existed. I mean, let's be honest: Since when haven't kids dug sand castle holes with (gasp) metal shovels ?

Oddly, a supposed "law" for this dastardly act might actually be envisioned by us md'rs. Because we know ALL TOO WELL (as metal detectorists) the rigmarole of "dig" vs "hole" vs "shovel". ONLY because we constantly metal detect. But put yourself in the shoes of a non-md'r, who is simply digging a sand castle. He *might* be thinking "this is a joke, right?" Same reaction as the candid camera people had. And then I can just envision a cop who couldn't answer the question "calling for backups", etc.....

Tom, buddy, it has been a long accepted rule of the courts that, "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Just as with anyplace one might pursue activities it is their responsibility to be informed of any existing laws. Officers are under no obligation to make individuals informed of those existing laws. In this case the offender wasn't aware of the ordnance and once informed he proceeded to make challenge with the officer.....and so he got a citation. End of story, should have never made the news.

Is it petty? Perhaps, but why did this ordinance prohibiting "metal" tools on the beach come about in the first place? Is it safety related? Perhaps the extension of a prior incident involving metal tools? If it was just about "holes" then one would suspect "all digging tools" would be prohibited and not just "metal" tools. Something unspoken brought this ordinance into place, it wasn't just crafted out of thin air. But what, exactly? Could be there is good reason why that ordinance came to be and why it is enforced. Either way it doesn't really matter, the ordinance was in place and the individual was in violation of that ordinance.

 

[bigscoop]

The problem as I see it is that there is a dearth of actual facts in the 'news' stories. Unsuprisingly, once again, the msm has gone long on the sensationalism and short on the facts of the incident. That has resulted in most of this thread speculating on the actual facts and the attitudes of the principal players in this drama.

Exactly! If we've learned anything in recent years it's that there is always more to the story then we see in print, or that there's more suggested in print then actually existed in the story. The media has become an entertainment industry first.

 

[ScubaDetector]

The problem as I see it is that there is a dearth of actual facts in the 'news' stories. Unsuprisingly, once again, the msm has gone long on the sensationalism and short on the facts of the incident. That has resulted in most of this thread speculating on the actual facts and the attitudes of the principal players in this drama.

AMEN to that. I have FIRST HAND knowledge how the media twists things around to make someone look like an idiot. More than not it is the public and not the cop.
To prove that point all you have to do is google Port Huron Bomb (Or read the story below) Just don't believe what you read.

All-clear from bomb squad after WWI bomb was found by diver & taken to Port Huron police department - WXYZ.com

 

[cudamark]

Dang, I think I ran out of popcorn.......oh wait,.......ah, that's better.....

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... and once informed he proceeded to make challenge with the officer...

They way I understood the time-line, is that the "challenge to the officer" was BEFORE "informed". (ie.: before being shown any chapter & verse actual rule/law)

But I'm glad you have implicitly stated my case That it's a case of "informed" vs "challenge" timing-issue. And BTW, to merely be told "scram" or "stop" is not to be "informed". No-more-so than if I walked up to you and said "jump", you might be inclined to say "why?" or "says who", rather than to jump-at-my-command.

And, let's just say that, yes, eventually (after back-up was called) the man eventually got some silly reference to depth of hole or "metal tool" rule shown. But , again, using the Candid camera example .... SO TOO were they shown a sign (albeit fake in that staged case) of the speed limit for walking (2 mph, or whatever). And guess what they did EVEN THOUGH SHOWN THE SIGN ? They kept saying things like "you have to be kidding?" and "how the h#@ is a person supposed to have known that?" Or "How am I supposed to know how fast I was walking?" and "you're not really going to write me a ticket are you ?"

Yes I know the candid camera stunt was staged and *obviously* fake. But put yourself in the shoes of the person being told "you can't dig sand castles". It's not a far stretch from the understandable reactions of persons being told you're walking too fast, I'm going to have to tell you to stand still and give you a ticket".

 

[Geobound]

They have a new law there that prohibits the use of metal tools at the beach....so if they see you using a metal tool, they are going to stop you...you may not get a ticket but they are going to tell you to stop.

Yep!

Just think of the biggest idiot you know going to the beach decked out in all his jewellery.........I'm talking rings on all fingers, 2 or 3 gold chains around his hairy chest..................wouldn't that be classified as a metal tool??

 

[bigscoop]

They way I understood the time-line, is that the "challenge to the officer" was BEFORE "informed". (ie.: before being shown any chapter & verse actual rule/law)

But I'm glad you have implicitly stated my case That it's a case of "informed" vs "challenge" timing-issue. And BTW, to merely be told "scram" or "stop" is not to be "informed". No-more-so than if I walked up to you and said "jump", you might be inclined to say "why?" or "says who", rather than to jump-at-my-command.

And, let's just say that, yes, eventually (after back-up was called) the man eventually got some silly reference to depth of hole or "metal tool" rule shown. But , again, using the Candid camera example .... SO TOO were they shown a sign (albeit fake in that staged case) of the speed limit for walking (2 mph, or whatever). And guess what they did EVEN THOUGH SHOWN THE SIGN ? They kept saying things like "you have to be kidding?" and "how the h#@ is a person supposed to have known that?" Or "How am I supposed to know how fast I was walking?" and "you're not really going to write me a ticket are you ?"

Yes I know the candid camera stunt was staged and *obviously* fake. But put yourself in the shoes of the person being told "you can't dig sand castles". It's not a far stretch from the understandable reactions of persons being told you're walking too fast, I'm going to have to tell you to stand still and give you a ticket".

Tom, you're simply continuing to try to make argument that this is, in some way, the officer's fault. Again, in no way is the officer obliged to quote written law to anyone, all he has to do is to inform you that you are in violation "of an existing order", and as this officer did, at his own discretion, ask you to correct the situation. How an individual responds to this type of a request is up to that individual but they need to understand that officers don't have to put up with challenges or antics, just as they shouldn't have to put up with them. All this individual had to do was to say, OK, no problem" and then check up on that the existence of that order afterwords, which would have been very easy to do. No citation. No media sensation. No issues at all. But Nooooooo......it's "let's see how far we can push authority."

"Can you cite me that law?".....get real, with so many laws on the books it would be impossible for an officer to cite them all on demand.

 

[Xraywolf]

4335 views... how much longer will this thread last?

As long as there are folks who knee jerk suck up to authority figures and think they can never do any wrong.

I could have made $$$ on this thread........so there is an "ordinance" (underlying reason) prohibiting metal tools at the beach (a metal hoe) which is why the officer approached the man (the guy breaking that ordinance)

Would have lost $$$ so far.
Once again, you stated:
"I'd bet money there was underlying reason why this man with the hoe was approached in the first place. "Something" had to bring this series of events into being in the first place."
Clearly implying the guy did something untoward [other than the obvious of having a metal tool at the beach] without offering a shred of proof. Now you back off and say the "underlying reason" was that he was using a metal hoe ,, No duh, thats what this thread was about from post #1.
Thats like saying the underlying reason why I got a speeding ticket was because I was going over the speed limit.
We had another guy early in this thread frantically stating as fact that the guy was belligerent and in the officers face, he likewise did not present any proof for his half baked contentions.

I think all concerned here agree that the officer was well within her rights of duty informing the man of the infraction, petty though it may be.
Demanding the hole be filled is another matter, not likely the hole itself was a violation of anything ,,, And refusal or inability to offer the man an authoritative cite of the law he was alleged to have broken is where we disagree.
If an officer is prepared to hand out violations for obscure and recently enacted ordinances, they ought to be ready, willing and able to explain exactly what for. If they can't remember it then carry around a copy on their smart phones, simple and problem solved.

 

[ScubaDetector]

Tom, you're simply continuing to try to make argument that this is, in some way, the officer's fault. Again, in no way is the officer obliged to quote written law to anyone, all he has to do is to inform you that you are in violation "of an existing order", and as this officer did, at his own discretion, ask you to correct the situation. How an individual responds to this type of a request is up to that individual but they need to understand that officers don't have to put up with challenges or antics, just as they shouldn't have to put up with them. All this individual had to do was to say, OK, no problem" and then check up on that the existence of that order afterwords, which would have been very easy to do. No citation. No media sensation. No issues at all. But Nooooooo......it's "let's see how far we can push authority."

"Can you cite me that law?".....get real, with so many laws on the books it would be impossible for an officer to cite them all on demand.

I totally disagree with you bigscoop. I have educated many officers. I have also received SIX citations from officers that don't want to be educated. ALL were dismissed because the officers were WRONG. Now if I didn't know the law, I MIGHT follow their instructions then check it out for myself later. However, I see no harm in asking an officer to prove he knows what he is talking about.

Again, I won't say if the priest or the officer was right or wrong. I also won't say the media is wrong. But he got a ticket that the maximum penalty is 25.00. Doesn't mean he was found guilty by a judge or if he is going to fight it and and have a judge dismiss it.

Just because someone gets a citation, doesn't mean they are guilty of anything except probably pissing off a cop.

I was fishing at night on the Ogden river in Utah. A sheriff officer stopped, checked my license and drivers license and proceeded to tell me I was fishing illegally. I wasn't and I knew it. BUT, I left, went into Ogden to Smiths Food King which was open 24 hours a day and got a copy of the fishing regulations. I called the sheriff office and told them what happened. I also told them I was going back fishing and if the officer wanted to check the regulations, I had a copy for him. Never showed back up.

My boss took folks to jail. In fact, if he called for backup I knew someone for sure was going to jail. One time after the guy was booked and gone. The jailers asked him what the guy was charged with and added "Contempt of Sean?" He argued with people to get them to do something wrong.

COPS CAN AND DO make up things to get you to do what they desire. I have LOTS of stories. I haven't been cuffed and stuffed yet and I don't intend to be. BUT I absolutely know for a FACT some officers are bullies. PERIOD. And some want to keep the peace and in doing so try to violate your rights.

There will ALWAYS be TWO SIDES to everything. You can't judge. But to say never to argue with a cop?? Sorry I can't buy that.

And just because I don't agree with you, it doesn't mean I don't respect your way to handle a situation. Everyone has to do what they feel is right and don't look back.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Tom, you're simply continuing to try to make argument that this is, in some way, the officer's fault. ....

And you have apparently not read what I've written. Look back and you will see that MULTIPLE times I say that it's possible to have a breakdown on BOTH ends. I do not subscribe to the notion that "cops are out-to-get-you" and that md'rs should "never give lip service" attitude. Look back at previous posts of mine, and you'll see I very-much agree that the cop was just doing their job, and not necessarily "copping a power trip".

.... in no way is the officer obliged to quote written law to anyone, all he has to do is to inform you that you are in violation "of an existing order",...

Really ? So if he says to "jump" or "take off your blue shirt", you don't even for a moment question this. Right ? More power to you then. If you'd have been one of the persons pulled over by Peter Funt candid camera gag, then you would have been the lone hold-out for the *normal* human reaction of "since when?" and "you've got to be kidding". I don't disagree with you that utter compliance (no matter how silly sounding) isn't a valid way of business and reaction. But ... just sayin' .... : Actual human reaction (as seen in the candid camera stunt) is sometimes quick to engage in conversation, rather than say "please tell me where to sign the ticket please".

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... informing the man of the infraction, petty though it may be.
.....

"Petty" ? SAY IT ISN'T SO ! This is worse than clubbing baby seals apparently ! And *so serious* that it should have been plainly obvious to fellow that, .... OF COURSE such laws exist. I mean, the average person *knows* that sand castles of depths beyond 2 ft. are now "illegal everywhere". Shame on him for having the gall to engage in conversation to the contrary.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... I have educated many officers.....

Well, to be clear, in YOUR cases: You "educated" them when they were in the wrong (technicalities of scuba and water rules, blah blah). However, in the case at hand, .... as it turns out ... there WAS a rule that the man was technically violating. So the comparison to your fabled stories aren't exactly the same here.

 

[ScubaDetector]

Well, to be clear, in YOUR cases: You "educated" them when they were in the wrong (technicalities of scuba and water rules, blah blah). However, in the case at hand, .... as it turns out ... there WAS a rule that the man was technically violating. So the comparison to your fabled stories aren't exactly the same here.

VERY TRUE. That is why I said if you don't know the laws, leaving and learning might be the best way to go. HOWEVER, questioning and asking might piss off a cop, BUT IMHO there is nothing wrong with learning from them. Some think that questioning an officers authority isn't right. I don't agree even if I do not know the laws. And some officers are VERY opposed to teaching others without giving an attitude.

I need to add that EVEN if you DO know the laws and you are not in violation. Sometimes it is better to walk away and let an officer feel superior than to make matters worse. It would all depend on the situation. If there was an intense standoff with guns involved and an officer told you to leave the area NOW. But you were within your rights not to, arguing will not get you any brownie points or sympathy from anyone. Nothing is just black and white. Lots and lots of gray areas.

No idea what happened here and won't speculate.

 

[bigscoop]

I've been pulled over a few times for speeding, once for doing over 100mph in a 55, I've never gotten a ticket. Why? "Yes Sir."
I've never pressed or challenged the issue and said, "Can you cite me the law?"

I did, however, get pulled over in my boat by a DNR officer for running my bass boat wide open in an idle zone, around 60mph, and again, I just said, "Yes Sir." Only problem was that it was a female officer so I did end up with a warning.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I've been pulled over a few times for speeding, once for doing over 100mph in a 55, I've never gotten a ticket. Why? "Yes Sir."...

and what is the obvious implied message of this ? (be honest) : That in the OP's sand-castle-builder story: *IF ONLY* he had been compliant and polite and said "yes sir", he *too* could have avoided such troubles. Right ?

.... I've never pressed or challenged the issue and said, "Can you cite me the law?"....

Implied message by bigscoop here ? "The sand-castle builder was a defiant moron by questioning this, and/or asking 'what is the law'". Right ? Ok big scoop, I can't believe I even have to point this out, but here goes:

a) Put 100 people in a room and ask them: "Is it illegal to go 100 in a 55 mph zone? " What will the consensus be ?

b) Put 100 people in a room and ask them: "Is it illegal to dig over 2 ft. deep in beach sand, and/or your kid to use a metal scoop to dig?" What will the consensus be ?

Think hard bigscoop. And then tell us if you see the glaring non-applicability of your 100 mph story to this one.

 

[bigscoop]

Think hard, Tom, as what you're suggesting is that ignorance of the law should be an accepted excuse. Imagine a world where all violators had to do to escape penalty was to say, "Gee, I wasn't aware of that law." And that's really what's at issue in this debate/discussion, some willing to except error and authority and others who simply can't stand the thought of it.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... what you're suggesting is that ignorance of the law should be an accepted excuse.....

Wait ? ! Isn't that the WHOLE POINT of the man-in-the-story ? He was trying NOT be "ignorant". That's WHY he was asking "what law?" and so forth.

Unless, of course, you advocate that no matter how arbitrary/silly a command seems, there is never to be anything except a "yes sir" ? Yes, I agree, that's a viable option. And yes, you fight it later, if you got a ticket. But just saying that as much as you (a normal person) THINKS that will be his "automatic reaction" (to commands to "jump" etc....) yet in real life, people (yes, even you), might be inclined to say "really ? since when? Are you sure?".

Yes, not when you've gone 100 in a 55 (because you, and everyone, knows full well that's illegal). But seriously now, I bet that even you in that case (if you weren't an md'r aware of such things as md'rs face) YOU TOO might have thought "this is candid camera, right ?" Or "you've got to be kidding me". In the same way as if someone wearing a city-shirt came up to you and said "jump", you probably wouldn't jump. NOT SAYING THAT TO 'jump' isn't a viable option. Just sayin' that most people, when it comes to blatantly silly stuff (that they, at the time, had no reason to "know" or "expect") do not respond in this way.

 

[bigscoop]

Tom, here's the difference in our debate, "viewpoint." Where I see an officer and a violator you see a "her" and a "priest." Why "her" and "priest" is significant in the event, well, I have no idea. However, it's obvious that you do and I'm sure the media noticed it as well. Bottom line, it was an officer performing their duty and writing a citation for violation. It happens all over the country each and everyday so why this particular event got singled out and even made the news is beyond me, but you may be on to something in noticing the "her" and "priest" aspect? I just don't recognize that same relevance. But it is what it is.....time to move on.

 

[Xraywolf]

I've been pulled over a few times for speeding, once for doing over 100mph in a 55, I've never gotten a ticket. Why? "Yes Sir."
I've never pressed or challenged the issue and said, "Can you cite me the law?"

No need to be flippant, I specifically said "obscure and recently enacted ordinances".
Speeding, drug use, rape, murder ect are well known to be against the law while using metal tools at the beach are not.