Big brother is watching....from somewhere near the I40 bridge in Topock

[rivrrts429]

Dave, I'm still not going to answer that question, but I will explain why I'm not going to answer it. When cops started using RADAR, people who wanted to drive fast started using RADAR detectors. When cops started using red light cameras, people started wearing gorilla masks and covering their license plates. When we announce an OUI checkpoint, word gets around on forums like this and people avoid the area. Already on this forum people are advocating draping towels over their gunwales to hide their numbers, which is probably a more serious violation than the wake speed. We're trying something new. If it is working and people are slowing down in the wakeless areas, paying more attention to their surroundings and other boaters, and advising their friends to do the same, then I'm happy and I'm going to use that tool as long and effectively as possible. No disrespect, but I'm not sure you'd find any law enforcement agency out there eager to disclose all their tricks.

SRice,

I think the challenge you're going to have with that approach is that you're only feeding into the public perception of revenue over safety. It's not an adequate argument to state that your department generates zero revenue as some department or organization somewhere is seeing the benefits. It's why departments like yours operate on budgets and there is a numbers guy sitting somewhere on the government payroll tallying wins and losses.

Taking this approach gives the perception of a "gotcha" type citation versus educating the average boater. I want to believe that you're handing out citations to those blatantly abusing the no wake speed, not the guy trying to make headway against the current, but your written word reads otherwise.

The average boater, especially the ones on this forum, want to live and boat cohesively with law enforcement. We want to be left alone and genuinely follow the law. After all, it's no small dollar amount to do this activity. Generally these are folks with extra income who choose to boat and buy goods within the city, tax districts, and counties which you too see a benefit from in the way of city improvements and careers.

Signs and warnings clearly stating that cameras and/or videos are in place wont stop the blatant criminals but they do help with the average boater who had a moment of bad judgement and they act as a reminder. Locks keep honest people honest, criminals not so much. My opinion is that you will do more harm than good by using the "gotcha" tactic on the good guys, unless of course it's a numbers game. The potential for situations like Alex are only compounded and next thing you have is even more eyes everywhere watching you too.

Do as you please, I respect that you're the cog in the wheel doing a job, but it's much more productive to pull on a rope versus pushing it. This isn't T&Y's gang riddled inner city department. It's average boaters with a bit of extra income enjoying a place we too wish we could live and work in. It's not an easy job but I suspect you can find a happy medium. Just be aware of the perception as it can pay dividends when making contact with that next boater who happened to read this thread.

 

[t&y]

You can take a picture and find out later if it's your prerogative.. Hence the transparency.

You don't like transparency there is always the private sector? Or other countries that don't have things like the constitution.. For the people by the people of the people type stuff?

Are you not my people? Am I not yours?

We've met in person for a total of what... 2 minutes? I have no idea if you are "my people" or not honestly. What I do know is the common theme is to believe that Law Enforcement in general are in the wrong from the get go around this place.

Take a pic all you want, video all you want. The way you proceed with that pic or video will define my opinion of you. A bit of perspective for you Dave... I've had well over 20,000 documented work related contacts thus far and have only had 3 complaints over my entire career. 2 of those were procedural (too long to repsond to a call..etc) type stuff. People on here are real quick to judge without knowing a damn thing. Shit, within the last few posts my "morals" were brought into question.

So you take all that into consideration and then ask yourself why any of US (meaning Law Enforcement) would take the time on our own to comment back to posters in here related to work. I do it because basically I'm bored and the kids control the TV... lol... why anyone else does I don't know. I wil tell you this. There are a ton of LEO's on this board that you and many others don't know about and they don't make it known for the reasons stated above.

If someone wants to make it a personal vendetta over an agency potentially closing down a riding area have at it. I'm still free to form my opinions just like they are.

 

[McRib]

Ive learned nothing in this thread! We have a water cop that types like a boring law school book with verbage that has more holes in it than a donut factory. Wont answer questions because they dont want us hip to their entrapment plans. Cops defending cops and zero progress made.

As fot the cameras.... they must have permission from the natural gas plant to use their cameras or got permission to mount their own originals. The may be under surveillance sign has been their since at least 05.

The camera/s have to be down low on the shore in a duck blind type situation. No way a top/high mounted camera could see the negative angle under most boats cap line. Something bigger is happening here.

 

[SBMech]

We've met in person for a total of what... 2 minutes? I have no idea if you are "my people" or not honestly. What I do know is the common theme is to believe that Law Enforcement in general are in the wrong from the get go around this place.

Take a pic all you want, video all you want. The way you proceed with that pic or video will define my opinion of you. A bit of perspective for you Dave... I've had well over 20,000 documented work related contacts thus far and have only had 3 complaints over my entire career. 2 of those were procedural (too long to repsond to a call..etc) type stuff. People on here are real quick to judge without knowing a damn thing. Shit, within the last few posts my "morals" were brought into question.

So you take all that into consideration and then ask yourself why any of US (meaning Law Enforcement) would take the time on our own to comment back to posters in here related to work. I do it because basically I'm bored and the kids control the TV... lol... why anyone else does I don't know. I wil tell you this. There are a ton of LEO's on this board that you and many others don't know about and they don't make it known for the reasons stated above.

If someone wants to make it a personal vendetta over an agency potentially closing down a riding area have at it. I'm still free to form my opinions just like they are.

I believe he meant you are a boater, like the rest of us bro.

:thumbsup

 

[DaBank]

Absolutely right. So when that cop takes off in front of you do you know what he's doing?

Sometimes when we both show up at the same lunch spot:rolleyes
Sometimes when I am traveling the same road to go home and they pull into there driveways........See how when statements like this are made the words "Them" and "ME" come out. THIS is the problem. I know when I go alittle to far offtrack and get called on it I man up and say yeah I am wrong.......not make excuses why it is no big deal and justify why I am right.

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

I believe he meant you are a boater, like the rest of us bro.

:thumbsup

Don't bro me if you don't know me. :skull

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

Ive learned nothing in this thread! We have a water cop that types like a boring law school book with verbage that has more holes in it than a donut factory. Wont answer questions because they dont want us hip to their entrapment plans. Cops defending cops and zero progress made.

As fot the cameras.... they must have permission from the natural gas plant to use their cameras or got permission to mount their own originals. The may be under surveillance sign has been their since at least 05.

The camera/s have to be down low on the shore in a duck blind type situation. No way a top/high mounted camera could see the negative angle under most boats cap line. Something bigger is happening here.

No shit. They want to get their closures pushed through.. That is what is happening.

 

[shintoooo]

Ive learned nothing in this thread! We have a water cop that types like a boring law school book with verbage that has more holes in it than a donut factory. Wont answer questions because they dont want us hip to their entrapment plans. Cops defending cops and zero progress made.

As fot the cameras.... they must have permission from the natural gas plant to use their cameras or got permission to mount their own originals. The may be under surveillance sign has been their since at least 05.

The camera/s have to be down low on the shore in a duck blind type situation. No way a top/high mounted camera could see the negative angle under most boats cap line. Something bigger is happening here.

 

[McRib]

View attachment 496242

don't laugh. we getting close to end of fiscal year federal entities. they gotta spend right now. a couple of guys could very well be doing this every weekend at double OT and hazard pay to the tune of 97.50 an hour.

 

[rivrrts429]

We've met in person for a total of what... 2 minutes? I have no idea if you are "my people" or not honestly. What I do know is the common theme is to believe that Law Enforcement in general are in the wrong from the get go around this place.

Take a pic all you want, video all you want. The way you proceed with that pic or video will define my opinion of you. A bit of perspective for you Dave... I've had well over 20,000 documented work related contacts thus far and have only had 3 complaints over my entire career. 2 of those were procedural (too long to repsond to a call..etc) type stuff. People on here are real quick to judge without knowing a damn thing. Shit, within the last few posts my "morals" were brought into question.

So you take all that into consideration and then ask yourself why any of US (meaning Law Enforcement) would take the time on our own to comment back to posters in here related to work. I do it because basically I'm bored and the kids control the TV... lol... why anyone else does I don't know. I wil tell you this. There are a ton of LEO's on this board that you and many others don't know about and they don't make it known for the reasons stated above.

If someone wants to make it a personal vendetta over an agency potentially closing down a riding area have at it. I'm still free to form my opinions just like they are.

The challenge you have is that this area that SRice is working is not the inner city shit hole. It's Lake Havasu where the average boater is a hard working career minded family man. Not all that different than the perception I/we have of you. The difference just so happens to be that you're law enforcement. Beyond that there is little difference, if any, between you and I once we're on the water.

Let's not make this out to be like its rocket science. Criminals tend to stand out like a sore thumb in this Havasu environment and I don't need a LEO background to spot it. Some shitty camera during a moment of error on a good boater is going to backfire eventually. Police departments don't treat every area the same. They don't make contact with the average citizen in Beverly Hills the same way they do in East LA.

All I'm saying is let's make it about education, safety and catching the bad guys rather than fucking with the very people who could help you. Knowing your clientele would go a long ways in these situations. That is of course if these citations generate absolutely zero revenue for someone somewhere up the supply chain.

 

[RiverDave]

It becomes US vs. THEM when things do not go their way Dave. They'd be happy as clams right now if the closures they proposed went through. The increase in enforcement is a means for THEM to further their misguided agenda.

If they came out and said "Look, we are not seeking to close any of the river any longer, but we are going to put up some surveilence here for the enforcement of X,Y and Z.. This would all be a non issue.

Well I see you saying that.. And I see a lot of people saying that or at least acting it. Hell I have acted it for most of my life.. And now I find myself asking why? Is this not my government? Is it not for my benefit?

Easier to try and make a positive change then fight the Feds.. So I figure I'll give it a shot.

Me too. You got ideas to prevent more accidents like the one that just killed that little girl up in Laughlin, please let me know. In the meantime I'm doing the best I can to prevent the next one. I'll go ahead and donate that $130 "fine" to Big Brothers Big Sisters. Regardless of whether it is reasonable to hold anybody responsible for a regulation which is not adequately posted (it isn't), it's money well spent. Good night.

I have lots of ideas on how to improve boater safety to be honest. I'd love to get together and talk not only those subjects over with you, but others as well. I think you'll find I'm a pretty easy going guy, and I work on the off hours as well.. Most of this conversation tonight was in between heats at my daughters swim matches.

We've met in person for a total of what... 2 minutes? I have no idea if you are "my people" or not honestly. What I do know is the common theme is to believe that Law Enforcement in general are in the wrong from the get go around this place.

Take a pic all you want, video all you want. The way you proceed with that pic or video will define my opinion of you. A bit of perspective for you Dave... I've had well over 20,000 documented work related contacts thus far and have only had 3 complaints over my entire career. 2 of those were procedural (too long to repsond to a call..etc) type stuff. People on here are real quick to judge without knowing a damn thing. Shit, within the last few posts my "morals" were brought into question.

So you take all that into consideration and then ask yourself why any of US (meaning Law Enforcement) would take the time on our own to comment back to posters in here related to work. I do it because basically I'm bored and the kids control the TV... lol... why anyone else does I don't know. I wil tell you this. There are a ton of LEO's on this board that you and many others don't know about and they don't make it known for the reasons stated above.

If someone wants to make it a personal vendetta over an agency potentially closing down a riding area have at it. I'm still free to form my opinions just like they are.

I believe he meant you are a boater, like the rest of us bro.

:thumbsup

This.. A boater of similar interests in a lot of categories in life. More so then you would realize!

 

[t&y]

The challenge you have is that this area that SRice is working is not the inner city shit hole. It's Lake Havasu where the average boater is a hard working career minded family man. Not all that different than the perception I/we have of you. The difference just so happens to be that you're law enforcement. Beyond that there is little difference, if any, between you and I once we're on the water.

Let's not make this out to be like its rocket science. Criminals tend to stand out like a sore thumb in this Havasu environment and I don't need a LEO background to spot it. Some shitty camera during a moment of error on a good boater is going to backfire eventually. Police departments don't treat every area the same. They don't make contact with the average citizen in Beverly Hills the same way they do in East LA.

All I'm saying is let's make it about education, safety and catching the bad guys rather than fucking with the very people who could help you. Knowing your clientele would go a long ways in these situations. That is of course if these citations generate absolutely zero revenue for someone somewhere up the supply chain.

Discretion is how it should all be handled. That works both ways. SRice described how he evaluated the picture and said he uses the same rules when dealing with the public. I tend to believe him until he gives me a reason not to. It's obvious on here there are those that don't believe a word he is saying. So honestly, unless he really just has extra time on his hands I don't see the point in him continuing.

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

Well I see you saying that.. And I see a lot of people saying that or at least acting it. Hell I have acted it for most of my life.. And now I find myself asking why? Is this not my government? Is it not for my benefit?

Easier to try and make a positive change then fight the Feds.. So I figure I'll give it a shot.




I have lots of ideas on how to improve boater safety to be honest. I'd love to get together and talk not only those subjects over with you, but others as well. I think you'll find I'm a pretty easy going guy, and I work on the off hours as well.. Most of this conversation tonight was in between heats at my daughters swim matches.

Dave I agree with your approach and reasoning, but I have said this before: Without a real two way dialogue, it is all lip service. And that dialogue MUST start from the top. Again, if they came out and said we will not continue to persue closures on the river and want to work on alternative means of achieving safety and fun for everyone, I am all in, even if that means a couple cameras in no wake zones.

 

[C-2]

Let me correct some misinformation in your post. Yes, all of the violations in 50 CFR are Class B misdemeanors and if I write a mandatory appearance due to extenuating circumstances or if you chose to go to court AND LOSE, Congress says you have committed a misdemeanor. If, however, you pay the collateral forfeiture amount set by the US Magistrate you are not convicted and are not admitting guilt in the misdemeanor. You have simply paid some money into a fund for victims of crime, much like with an infraction you just give the state some money but have no criminal conviction. You have a record with the local Federal court and in our FWS database, but no criminal conviction. That's the way the Court does stuff, not FWS. It is probably intended to discourage people from tying up the Court's time and yeah I agree that's either coercive or a really good deal depending on your perspective.

Misinformation...what in the CVB for the AZ District of the USDC, or ambiguity in Rule 58 am I reading wrong? If I am wrong, I'm all ears.

 

[C-2]

I'll concede being incorrect on the Phonex part; there are other locations in AZ in which to appear.

 

[RiverDave]

Discretion is how it should all be handled. That works both ways. SRice described how he evaluated the picture and said he uses the same rules when dealing with the public. I tend to believe him until he gives me a reason not to. It's obvious on here there are those that don't believe a word he is saying. So honestly, unless he really just has extra time on his hands I don't see the point in him continuing.

I actually believe everything he is saying.. I agree 100% though in its current dynamic it is an excersize in frustration and not doing any good. A few members are listening, a few members asked questions and a few weren't answered.. But it goes deeper than that.

Dave I agree with your approach and reasoning, but I have said this before: Without a real two way dialogue, it is all lip service. And that dialogue MUST start from the top. Again, if they came out and said we will not continue to persue closures on the river and want to work on alternative means of achieving safety and fun for everyone, I am all in, even if that means a couple cameras in no wake zones.

SRice originally came on here providing information, not much different than Boatcop. He gave a few specifics, and then shared a differing opinion and honestly most of the members have been pretty ruthless since. Now that he is being attacked on various sides he is acting defensive which is perfectly natural..

Personally I feel Boatcop has been an INVALUABLE asset to these forums over the years. Do we always agree? No.. But that is the point of a forum is an exchange of different ideas, in order to gain knowledge..

I can tell you for a fact him being on here has changed how I boat somewhat, and how I interact with LEO on the water. While I couldn't put a finger on it I can tell you he has learned at least somethings from the various members on the board as well.. Some positive relationships were built out of that, that were beneficial for everyone and still are!

I'd love for everyone to just put the pitchforks down (includes you SRice) for two seconds so that we can all agree on one undeniable thing..

We are all in this together no matter what. The refuge isn't going anywhere, the boaters aren't going anywhere, SRice to my knowledge isn't going anywhere, RDP hopefully isn't going anywhere.. Lol

So let's at least try to start over amicably.. When we get past step 1, and we can all get on the same page on that front, create a couple lists of problems and concerns from both sides.. And work together to at least try to solve or explain them from both sides.. Are they all gonna get solved? No probably not.. But that's life. Are some going to get solved? Absolutely and that's called progress..

So here's an example.. SRice asked me how I'd make boating safer and help to prevent accidents in the future like the one that killed the little girl recently. No problem at all, I have tons of ideas on that..

I'd ask something simple in return. Let's get back to the founding principal of why that slow area was placed in front of Topock. It wasn't placed there because they were concerned about wakes. It was concern for safety because of increased traffic and blind corner etc.. So what is the point of extending that or even writing a no wake ticket when that wasn't the purpose to begin with? Is there some sort of compromise there that can be had to make more sense of its original purpose other than surveillance and boats going 6mph up river instead of five?


With all this building of walls it would seem to me that we (both sides) might have lost track of what we were actually doing in the first place and what the actual problems are?

 

[Bradsrvrtoy.]

Here you go
First, the officer behind the wheel is new to our staff and to boating. He started at Havasu a couple weeks ago and the day you photographed him was probably his third, possibly fourth, day on the water. Prior to coming here he completed the DOI Motorboat Operator Certification Course as part of his basic academy, but this is primarily instruction with only an hour or two of actual boat experience.

This is scary to hear...Doesn't your agency have an in depth training for watercraft use before sending them out on the water on one of the busiest weekends? 2 HRS hands on and they are good to go? Were the other two officers instructing him and if so the pic wouldn't have been taken? I would venture to say not many "brand new never been on a boat before" users venture out for the first time on a busy holiday weekend. (rental boats aside) Do watercraft LEOs turn over alot? From what I have seen the last year or so...Many of whom admit to never owning or being in a powerboat before.

Guys like boat cop have my upmost respect because he lived bothsides of the isle and I believe from his posts over the years... had a genuine interest in recreational powerboating as he actually enjoy's the boating lifestyle like we all do on here.

 

[RiverDave]

Boatcop had a spectra 20 named strip search.. Lol. Guy is legit!

 

[RiverDave]

Here you go
First, the officer behind the wheel is new to our staff and to boating. He started at Havasu a couple weeks ago and the day you photographed him was probably his third, possibly fourth, day on the water. Prior to coming here he completed the DOI Motorboat Operator Certification Course as part of his basic academy, but this is primarily instruction with only an hour or two of actual boat experience.

This is scary to hear...Doesnt your agency have an in depth training for watercraft use before sending them out on the water on one of the busiest weekends? 2 HRS hands on and they are good ti go? Where the other two officers instructing him and if so the pic wouldnt have been taken? I would venture to say not many "brand new never been on a boat before" users venture out for the first time on a busy holiday weekend. (rental boats aside) Do watercraft LEOs turn over alot? From what I have seen the last year or so...Many of whom admit to never owning or being in a powerboat before.

Guys like boat cop have my upmost respect because he lived bothsides of the isle and I believe from his posts over the years had a genuine interest in recreational powerboating as he actually enjoyes the boating lifestyle like we all do on here.

I'm not sure what actual driving courses any of the government agencies have come to think of it?

 

[Cole Trickle]

Boatcop had a spectra 20 named strip search.. Lol. Guy is legit!

He was also in the coast guard for a long time before becoming a boat cop.[emoji106][emoji41]

 

[Ziggy]

Lmao...2 hours hands on. Can you imagine when he has to pull up next to a half million dollar boat....and those awesome black boots.
It is rather laughable that Srice even mentions that the officers ignorance was a factor. ......
Good Grief Charlie Brown.[emoji13] [emoji21]

 

[MSum661]

Does anyone know the status of H.R. 594 sponsored by Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar?
The "Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act".

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/594


Also, how does the State sovereignty principles, example: Mack/Printz v. USA, apply to attempts made by those in the United States government to impose federal regulatory programs on any Citizen and/or on State governments? Wasn't the Mack/Printz v. USA by the US Supreme court ruling a Victory For State Sovereignty?

 

[McRib]

Does anyone know the status of H.R. 594 sponsored by Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar?
The "Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act".

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/594


Also, how does the State sovereignty principles, example: Mack/Printz v. USA, apply to attempts made by those in the United States government to impose federal regulatory programs on any Citizen and/or on State governments? Wasn't the Mack/Printz v. USA by the US Supreme court ruling a Victory For State Sovereignty?

you can't ask questions like this unless your ready to read the grey area "our interpretation" answer that will still leave you asking the same question in the end only you'll be cross eyed and drooling out of the side of your mouth. lol

 

[spectra3279]

I actually believe everything he is saying.. I agree 100% though in its current dynamic it is an excersize in frustration and not doing any good. A few members are listening, a few members asked questions and a few weren't answered.. But it goes deeper than that.



SRice originally came on here providing information, not much different than Boatcop. He gave a few specifics, and then shared a differing opinion and honestly most of the members have been pretty ruthless since. Now that he is being attacked on various sides he is acting defensive which is perfectly natural..

Personally I feel Boatcop has been an INVALUABLE asset to these forums over the years. Do we always agree? No.. But that is the point of a forum is an exchange of different ideas, in order to gain knowledge..

I can tell you for a fact him being on here has changed how I boat somewhat, and how I interact with LEO on the water. While I couldn't put a finger on it I can tell you he has learned at least somethings from the various members on the board as well.. Some positive relationships were built out of that, that were beneficial for everyone and still are!

I'd love for everyone to just put the pitchforks down (includes you SRice) for two seconds so that we can all agree on one undeniable thing..

We are all in this together no matter what. The refuge isn't going anywhere, the boaters aren't going anywhere, SRice to my knowledge isn't going anywhere, RDP hopefully isn't going anywhere.. Lol

So let's at least try to start over amicably.. When we get past step 1, and we can all get on the same page on that front, create a couple lists of problems and concerns from both sides.. And work together to at least try to solve or explain them from both sides.. Are they all gonna get solved? No probably not.. But that's life. Are some going to get solved? Absolutely and that's called progress..

So here's an example.. SRice asked me how I'd make boating safer and help to prevent accidents in the future like the one that killed the little girl recently. No problem at all, I have tons of ideas on that..

I'd ask something simple in return. Let's get back to the founding principal of why that slow area was placed in front of Topock. It wasn't placed there because they were concerned about wakes. It was concern for safety because of increased traffic and blind corner etc.. So what is the point of extending that or even writing a no wake ticket when that wasn't the purpose to begin with? Is there some sort of compromise there that can be had to make more sense of its original purpose other than surveillance and boats going 6mph up river instead of five?


With all this building of walls it would seem to me that we (both sides) might have lost track of what we were actually doing in the first place and what the actual problems are?

You can say whatever you want about me but I do not trust a single person when it comes to the government. They keep proving over and over that we the everyday person is a complete and total inconvenience to them in their execution of their way of helping.



Again. The 10 scariest words in the English language

"Hi, I'm from the gooberment and I'm here to help"

 

[McRib]

 

[Havdesert]

Don't post on here normally but I got word of this thread through a desert racing forum im part of. Are these the same people handing out citations to people who drive there sidexsides from Havasu to Topock? I know there has been people complaining including owners of Topock because of these petty citations being givin out? Im pretty certain it is Fish and Wildlife but could be mistaken?

 

[milkmoney]

This last few pages is why I bailed out. Done with the I am better than you cop attitude shit.
[emoji107][emoji107]

 

[t&y]

you can't ask questions like this unless your ready to read the grey area "our interpretation" answer that will still leave you asking the same question in the end only you'll be cross eyed and drooling out of the side of your mouth. lol

Becareful what you wish for. That "gray area" a lot of times is right where all of a LEO's discretion falls. You want everything black and white? I sure as hell don't, and that is not the way I or any of my partners operate.

Everyone also needs to understand that there is a difference in that discretion at the officer level and then the prosecution level. Our court system interprets and changes charge levels all the time. In here you have a guy (SRice) who tried explaining how these cases actually get charged (or not) and now is being accussed of providing misinformation. I and every other cop out there have arrrested and seen cases where charges held pretty stiff penalties on the books only to be given a slap on the wrist come court time. It happens all day long in most court houses (exception would be in federal hearing of normal people... AKA not Hillary:skull)

Wake violations are the equivelant of CHP issuing tickets on the freeway for all the various violations in the vehicle code book. I'm not a huge fan of citing everyone but use the hell out of the sections to make contact. I'm also not a fan of camera tickets, but can not deny they are very affective at controling traffic in an area which appears to be the whole point behind this type of enforcement.

 

[t&y]

This last few pages is why I bailed out. Done with the I am better than you cop attitude shit.
[emoji107][emoji107]

Go pull on an udder. I only have a half gallon in the fridge and my kids are thirsty.

 

[RiverDave]

Don't post on here normally but I got word of this thread through a desert racing forum im part of. Are these the same people handing out citations to people who drive there sidexsides from Havasu to Topock? I know there has been people complaining including owners of Topock because of these petty citations being givin out? Im pretty certain it is Fish and Wildlife but could be mistaken?

Same agency yes.

 

[Mr. C]

This last few pages is why I bailed out. Done with the I am better than you cop attitude shit.
[emoji107][emoji107]

Quitterskull: I totally get it though:thumbsup

 

[C-2]

Everyone also needs to understand that there is a difference in that discretion at the officer level and then the prosecution level. Our court system interprets and changes charge levels all the time. In here you have a guy (SRice) who tried explaining how these cases actually get charged (or not) and now is being accussed of providing misinformation. I and every other cop out there have arrrested and seen cases where charges held pretty stiff penalties on the books only to be given a slap on the wrist come court time. It happens all .

I hope what he claims is true, but I'm pretty certain every USDC in the nation has adopted the stance if you pay the fine, you "could" be admitting to a crime. Apparently there is no case law on it. But, when the court itself identifies you may be admitting to a crime which could have adverse action as a result, and you are waiving your right to counsel and a trial....who do you put your trust in?

How do people who receive violations answer the question of: Have you ever been charged or convicted of a Misdemeanor? If you say no and then it shows up in a background investigation, that's not good.

If you say yes, then you have to explain it away. Since you can't answer "I don't know", you're kind of screwed either way since it is at the Misdemeanor level, and not an infractionable offense.

The bottom line for me is that it is an undo burden for an otherwise petty offense; in fact, it is labeled as a petty offense, but a Misdemeanor petty.

I fully understand there might not be any discretion for the charge itself, perhaps it's the only charge/level that applies to the violation; which is why I say, that's it unfair to cite under that code in the first place, let the local coppers do it so a person is penalized, but not disenfranchised because of a loophole/quagmire in a federal law.

Perhaps he has never thought of the impact of one of these tickets as opposed to an infraction; I don't know, but at a minimum, I hope my persistence invokes some thought about it.

I hope that what I say is incorrect, and that I am wrong, because then, it's simply another argument about us vs. them, to which I don't normally like to debate. I am not hell bent on being right, I will fully admit to being wrong and once again, apologize to SRice if that's the case. Too me it's about fairness, not right or wrong.

 

[t&y]

I hope what he claims is true, but I'm pretty certain every USDC in the nation has adopted the stance if you pay the fine, you "could" be admitting to a crime. Apparently there is no case law on it. But, when the court itself identifies you may be admitting to a crime which could have adverse action as a result, and you are waiving your right to counsel and a trial....who do you put your trust in?

How do people who receive violations answer the question of: Have you ever been charged or convicted of a Misdemeanor? If you say no and then it shows up in a background investigation, that's not good.

If you say yes, then you have to explain it away. Since you can't answer "I don't know", you're kind of screwed either way since it is at the Misdemeanor level, and not an infractionable offense.

The bottom line for me is that it is an undo burden for an otherwise petty offense; in fact, it is labeled as a petty offense, but a Misdemeanor petty.

I fully understand there might not be any discretion for the charge itself, perhaps it's the only charge/level that applies to the violation; which is why I say, that's it unfair to cite under that code in the first place, let the local coppers do it so a person is penalized, but not disenfranchised because of a loophole/quagmire in a federal law.

Perhaps he has never thought of the impact of one of these tickets as opposed to an infraction; I don't know, but at a minimum, I hope my persistence invokes some thought about it.

I hope that what I say is incorrect, and that I am wrong, because then, it's simply another argument about us vs. them, to which I don't normally like to debate. I am not hell bent on being right, I will fully admit to being wrong and once again, apologize to SRice if that's the case. Too me it's about fairness, not right or wrong.

You contact the court and ask for the dispotion the case. Not that hard. But I do agree, it should be a bit more straight forward of a process.

 

[milkmoney]

Go pull on an udder. I only have a half gallon in the fridge and my kids are thirsty.

Really. U got to have something new there , meter maid.

 

[milkmoney]

Quitterskull: I totally get it though:thumbsup

Yup. Lol [emoji41][emoji202]. Arguing with some officers of the law is like arguing with a child. U will never be heard or understood

 

[C-2]

Yup. Lol [emoji41][emoji202]. U will never be heard or understood

huh? :eek

 

[t&y]

Really. U got to have something new there , meter maid.

Uhh.. okay. Pull that pacifier outta your mouth and go suck a teet!

How was that?

 

[Abc123]

Cliff notes por favor.

 

[milkmoney]

huh? :eek

This god damn phone. Fuck whore autofuckingcorrrct.
I do know how to spell , actually pretty good , believe it or not and these buttons are small and I don't re read before I hit submit.

 

[milkmoney]

Uhh.. okay. Pull that pacifier outta your mouth and go suck a teet!

How was that?

No pacifier jus all nipple. And ur little attitude is going to cost you more than one beer. So slow down sheriff [emoji202]

 

[milkmoney]

Cliff notes por favor.

Good luck with that. [emoji12][emoji202]

 

[Abc123]

Good luck with that. [emoji12][emoji202]

Hey Thread-crapper, Don't you have words to misspell?

 

[Joker]

Hey Thread-crapper, Don't you have words to misspell?

 

[RiverDave]

Here's a thread with a bunch of important shit in it... Oh look something shiny!

 

[Havdesert]

Wow seems like fish and wildlife needs a little help in the PR field. They have a bad rap with the off road crowd and now the boating community seems a little unsure of them.

 

[SRice]

Misinformation...what in the CVB for the AZ District of the USDC, or ambiguity in Rule 58 am I reading wrong? If I am wrong, I'm all ears.

I am telling you the way it has been explained to me in this jurisdiction. The back of my tickets have the same info as what you posted, but I would call your attention to the words "may" (be treated as a guilty plea and recorded, etc). I do not know if the local magistrate or the Assistant US Attorneys office made apolicy which only applies in Northern Arizona or whether most CVB courts work things in similar fashion. All I can say with confidence is that my court liaison has consistently told me that our tickets are not recorded as misdemeanor convictions unless the person goes to court and loses. If you have questions beyond that, I'd have to refer you to the Flagstaff AUSA. Good point of clarification though- thank you.

 

[SRice]

Don't post on here normally but I got word of this thread through a desert racing forum im part of. Are these the same people handing out citations to people who drive there sidexsides from Havasu to Topock? I know there has been people complaining including owners of Topock because of these petty citations being givin out? Im pretty certain it is Fish and Wildlife but could be mistaken?

Yes, we are. The routes being taken by most individuals trespass across FWS land where OHVs are prohibited, as well as likely on the BNSF ROW and State Trust land. However, I have also gone out there with both Chip Venezio of Topock 66 and Autumn Boyle Robinson (?) of the Topock 66 Foundation to show them our trespass areas and help them find a legal route around us. Ms. Robinson used the information I provided and contacted other land owners and came up with a route around us which they promoted during a Poker Run they held up there. If people follow that route and are street legal for the portion they must drive on road (and of course helmets for kids and the other standard AZ laws), then there is no problem with them going to Topock 66. Generally speaking the route enters at Needles Mountain Road, goes under the railroad, to east and the north, and then pops out on Polaris Road south of town. Ms. Robinson would be the best point of contact for waypoints etc.

 

[SRice]

How do people who receive violations answer the question of: Have you ever been charged or convicted of a Misdemeanor? If you say no and then it shows up in a background investigation, that's not good.

If you say yes, then you have to explain it away. Since you can't answer "I don't know", you're kind of screwed either way since it is at the Misdemeanor level, and not an infractionable offense.

The bottom line for me is that it is an undo burden for an otherwise petty offense; in fact, it is labeled as a petty offense, but a Misdemeanor petty.


I hope that what I say is incorrect, and that I am wrong, because then, it's simply another argument about us vs. them, to which I don't normally like to debate. I am not hell bent on being right, I will fully admit to being wrong and once again, apologize to SRice if that's the case. Too me it's about fairness, not right or wrong.

Your question is totally fair, especially given the info you posted from the reverse of our citations. When people ask me your question, I tell them to truthfully answer "No, I have not been convicted of a misdemeanor." As long as they have an optional appearance ticket and make the collateral forfeiture. Again, though, FLagstaff AUSA's office is probably the only place to get the ironclad assurance you're looking for.

 

[C-2]

Thanks SRice for taking the time to answer. :thumbsup

 

[Havdesert]

SRice how many citations did you write? Is there a reason for the pitch forks? Just wondering I don't see. Any other agencies or officers getting attacked quite like you. Just trying to figure out why I was told about this thread and it is such a big deal. Reminds me of when I worked in downtown LA and there was one officer known to hide and be a little shady he got called out everywhere. I don't think that's you with all respect but sounds similar. You could almost have your own reality show. "Steve The Glass Bottle Hunter"