Does the U.S. Forest Service have such Authority?

Why is it that all LEO's, no matter what branch, all wear those hillbilly s---kicken boots?????????? If they are "on the water cops" why don't they wear boat shoes????????? Have some respect for other peoples pride and joys. I think most cops watch too much TV.
 
Jim M said:
Why is it that all LEO's, no matter what branch, all wear those hillbilly s---kicken boots?????????? If they are "on the water cops" why don't they wear boat shoes????????? Have some respect for other peoples pride and joys. I think most cops watch too much TV.
Click to expand...

The relationship between police and the public they serve is sadly deteriorating. When I was a young the authorities were respected, gave respect, served the public, and known visible members of the community. There are several factors in this breakdown I would like to highlight.

Over regulation and the me, me, me society: we try to regulate so much of life that people now pick and choose what they will and won't follow. We now have created an environment that, take many boaters, would rather not see the CG. Why, they might find a minor violation and penalize us, even though we all want them to save us if in danger. Our children see this reaction and others, such as watching for cops while speeding, and perpetuate this feeling. Many folks see police as part of big brother out to get them and sometimes they are right.


The failed war on drugs: we have lost more civil liberties to this than most realize. We cannot even keep drugs out of prisons, how are we going to keep a substance with up to a 1700% profit margin out of our country? This fight has hardened criminals, and law enforcement, many cops feel you are guilty until you prove you are innocent.

The police as a revenue source: in many jurisdictions if it doesn't pay there is little enforcement, but if it pays look out. This creates an adversarial relationship with the very community police are to serve. Rarely do I see community work in progress, police used to direct traffic when the signals failed, no more. When I called to ask why: the bottom line, it doesn't pay.

Unionization and fraternal membership, and behavior: police used to be known by the community they served, now they ride in souped-up menacing looking Chargers and the like. Most I've met don't want to live where they work and are highly distrustful of all but family and others in law enforcement. Because the public is now afraid the officers they patronize them giving them a big ego trip, but doing nothing to foster good relations.

We are black and white on issues, no gray: we have removed discretion from many situations that allow for good community policing. Sometimes people need a break, but we've got dash cams in place of judgment.

There will be some on both sides that will not fit this pattern, but whenever you see a law enforcement officer do you slow down, start to worry about minor details that they could play gotcha with? Generally law abiding citizens shouldn't need to feel this way.
 
When I read the first couple of articles I was of the mindset that the cops had far overstepped the bounds necessary to do a boat check and felt they had over reacted to the whole situation. After reading the comments from both sides and the testimony given at trial, I'm now pretty certain that the old guy got what he deserved. Whether or not the cops had the lawful authority to make the stop where/when they did will have to be settled by another court at another time. What Mr. Wilde did amounted to failure to obey a lawful order then resist arrest.

Please do a follow up post in this thread after sentencing, will you?
 
Gofirstclass said:
When I read the first couple of articles I was of the mindset that the cops had far overstepped the bounds necessary to do a boat check and felt they had over reacted to the whole situation. After reading the comments from both sides and the testimony given at trial, I'm now pretty certain that the old guy got what he deserved. Whether or not the cops had the lawful authority to make the stop where/when they did will have to be settled by another court at another time. What Mr. Wilde did amounted to failure to obey a lawful order then resist arrest.

Please do a follow up post in this thread after sentencing, will you?
Click to expand...

Well here is where we are... "The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that Indiana residents cannot keep police from entering their homes even if the entry is unlawful. In a 3-2 decision, the justices ruled that valid reasons would allow officers to come in without a warrant and that it's against the law for homeowners to resist."

They can now do what they want with little repraisal from the public.

http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-indi...tes-right-to-privacy-20110517,0,5143977.story
 
MM, for years the courts have ruled that police may enter a home without a warrant under certain circumstances. Among those are (a) while in pursuit of a suspect; (b) where exigent circumstances exist; (c) where they suspect that evidence of a crime may be destroyed if they don't go in right away. There are others, but those are the most frequent situations.

Whether a warrant has been issued or not, it's not up to the homeowner to determine if the entry is legal or not. That's for the courts to decide later. If a homeowner resists, he can be arrested for resisting even if a court later rules that the entry by the cops was illegal. The reasons behind these court decisions have to do with the safety of the homeowner and others present as well as the cops. Essentially it's a message to the homeowner that he's to follow the instructions of the cops and obey what they say. If the homeowner feels the intrustion was not done legally he can challenge it in court.
 
Gofirstclass said:
MM, for years the courts have ruled that police may enter a home without a warrant under certain circumstances. Among those are (a) while in pursuit of a suspect; (b) where exigent circumstances exist; (c) where they suspect that evidence of a crime may be destroyed if they don't go in right away. There are others, but those are the most frequent situations.

Whether a warrant has been issued or not, it's not up to the homeowner to determine if the entry is legal or not. That's for the courts to decide later. If a homeowner resists, he can be arrested for resisting even if a court later rules that the entry by the cops was illegal. The reasons behind these court decisions have to do with the safety of the homeowner and others present as well as the cops. Essentially it's a message to the homeowner that he's to follow the instructions of the cops and obey what they say. If the homeowner feels the intrustion was not done legally he can challenge it in court.
Click to expand...
There was really no point in enhancing the power of the police with this change and I certainly don't see the homeowners safety as the motivation. Some one busts down the door of my house in the middle of the night and there'll be lead flying, some one will get hurt...yes, maybe me. If homeowner safety is a priority you sure can't beat a knock on the door and a warrant. We are on the slippery slope here.
 
Woody, This change in Indiana didn't really enhance any police powers, it simply made a ruling on what court rulings across the country have been for many years.

I'm assuming you're a law abiding citizen, but you must realize that not everyone is. I'm going give you an example of when this "no knock entry" might be used and I'll use a worst case scenario for it...let's say you were harboring a fugitive wanted for being part of a major drug trafficking operation and he's known to be heavily armed, and the cops have tracked him to your house. They don't know if you are knowingly harboring him or if he's a friend and you don't know he's wanted and armed. There's a chance he's holding drugs and weapons and, if they "knock and announce" ("Police, open the door") he could flush the drugs and start shooting (or take you and your family hostage) before you open the door to let the cops in.

Trust me, if the cops busted down your door in the middle of the night (in the above situation) you'd be on the floor with a cop on your back before you really had a chance to wake up. A SWAT entry team looking for a fugitive who is known to be armed should be able to "secure" an entire house in 30 seconds or less. During that 30 seconds all you're going to hear is "POLICE, GET ON THE FLOOR" or words to that effect. It would be in your best interest (and that of your family) to not try to stop them.
 
Gofirstclass said:
When I read the first couple of articles I was of the mindset that the cops had far overstepped the bounds necessary to do a boat check and felt they had over reacted to the whole situation. After reading the comments from both sides and the testimony given at trial, I'm now pretty certain that the old guy got what he deserved. Whether or not the cops had the lawful authority to make the stop where/when they did will have to be settled by another court at another time. What Mr. Wilde did amounted to failure to obey a lawful order then resist arrest.

Please do a follow up post in this thread after sentencing, will you?
Click to expand...

Sure will. I read the actual decsion too and would agree Mr. Wilde was at fault. Some back ground: Alaska is 60% federally owned (maybe more than that now). In the 80s the Alaska Natives sued over perferance for subsitance hunting and fishing. Feds told Alaska change your State Constitution or we (the feds) will take over management of all federal lands and give the natived preferential rights. Alaskans do what they do best and gave the feds the middle finger. The Feds did as they said they were going to do and this has ignited a dispute over the enforcement of navagable waterways within a federal park. Is it the jusrisdiction of the feds or does the river belong to the State? Still on going.

Most folks who live in the bush, do not register their boats, planes etc. They just use them. Mr. Wilde probably felt the big bad white guys were trying to tell him what to do. There is also a big battle over native rights vs. Alaska residents rights.

Article VIII of the Alaska Consitution states:

http://ltgov.alaska.gov/treadwell/s...ution/article-viii-96A0natural-resources.html
 
AKBASSKING said:
Most folks who live in the bush, do not register their boats, planes etc. They just use them. Mr. Wilde probably felt the big bad white guys were trying to tell him what to do. There is also a big battle over native rights vs. Alaska residents rights.
Click to expand...

Is Mr. Wilde a member of one of the Native Tribes?
 
Gofirstclass said:
.... I'm going give you an example of when this "no knock entry" might be used and I'll use a worst case scenario for it...let's say you were harboring a fugitive wanted for being part of a major drug trafficking operation and he's known to be heavily armed, and the cops have tracked him to your house. They don't know if you are knowingly harboring him or if he's a friend and you don't know he's wanted and armed. There's a chance he's holding drugs and weapons and, if they "knock and announce" ("Police, open the door") he could flush the drugs and start shooting (or take you and your family hostage) before you open the door to let the cops in. ...
Click to expand...

I disagree and frankly this is just misguided reasoning from a former LEO that current LEOs use. In the circumstances indicated the ONLY reason to enter the house is if someone in the house is in immediate danger. In any other situation entering the house by any means simply puts people at risk and is not reasonable. If there is no immediate danger from the target then LEOs should wait till a more appropriate time, esp if they have the target in a contained situation and can more safely apprehend the target after he leaves the premisses. Obviously one can argue what if scenarios, but barging in unannounced in the absence of immediate danger is simply tyranny!

I am no LEO, but I have two good friends who are in police special tactics groups and post 9/11 have trained with military special forces on entry and detain methods. From discussions with them I know that there is no way they would choose to enter a normal residential home to detain any suspect unless there was an immediate and real danger to others in the house.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps ordinary LEO's are being influenced by dramatizations on COPs and similar reality TV shows and think WOW is that how the real LEOs do it....no wonder the public is losing respect!
 
Last edited:
one last post while i am ranting on this subject...and this also comes from my good friends....there is a theory that an effective police force is an invisible police force. If the police need to make their presence felt in order to control/protect the public or if the public feels more "safe" due to the visible presence of police then one has to question the society we live in and the effectiveness of the government and police in protecting us.
 
AKBASSKING...yes the OP was and sorry to diverge, but there were many post of general "powers" of LEOs. My post was directly in response to Gofirstclass assertion that LEOs have an excuse, a right, and even worse are justified for bursting into YOUR HOME unannounced just because you might unknowingly have a known fugitive straying over for a visit!!!

On the OP.....its seems that the old chap panicked over a $50 fine for an unregistered boat, handled the situation badly and paid the price. I get "approached" two or three times a year by marine police. I have nothing to hide so stop, make friendly chit chat and then go on my way.

I recall once as a student I drove my car for 2 years without paying registration tax. When I was finally stopped the cop wrote me an on the spot fine and made some comment about crime not paying...I just smiled and said thank you. Where I live registration tax is not continuos so I could re-register without penalty...the fine was half of the two years registration tax I saved. The cop and I both went home happy!!!!
 
Last edited:
When traveling on the waterway between the delta and the bay there is a naval weapons station that os mostly closed but still have ships stop and unload. The ship docks adjacent to the channel and there are very shallow waters outside of the channel so I always stay in the channel so as not to run aground. I was heading down last month and had 2 Coast Guard boats head at me with blue light flashing so I idled down expecting to be boarded and safety checked. Then I noticed the 50 cal. guns on the bow pointed at us! Evidently, when a ship is at this dock there is a barely marked alternate channel pleasure boats must use with tiny inflated markers showing the path.

I have no problem taking the alternate channel but some signage and larger, more well defined channel markers would be nice. At least I know that when I do venture into these waters (maybe twice a year) I may as well just stay in the outer channel to avoid the sight of big guns pointed at me...
 
HUMPH said:
When traveling on the waterway between the delta and the bay there is a naval weapons station that os mostly closed but still have ships stop and unload. The ship docks adjacent to the channel and there are very shallow waters outside of the channel so I always stay in the channel so as not to run aground. I was heading down last month and had 2 Coast Guard boats head at me with blue light flashing so I idled down expecting to be boarded and safety checked. Then I noticed the 50 cal. guns on the bow pointed at us! Evidently, when a ship is at this dock there is a barely marked alternate channel pleasure boats must use with tiny inflated markers showing the path.

I have no problem taking the alternate channel but some signage and larger, more well defined channel markers would be nice. At least I know that when I do venture into these waters (maybe twice a year) I may as well just stay in the outer channel to avoid the sight of big guns pointed at me...
Click to expand...

Did you check the USCG "Notice to Mariners?" It is quite possible they announed it there. I know in Valdez when a tanker is at the terminal they expand the restricted zone and if you cross it, it is a 1K fine......
 
Generally any 'sworn' LE officer, regardless if serving Federal, State, County or City 'government' has the 'authority' to uphold the law, 'jurisdictional' lines not withstanding. There is an unspoken, tacit understanding that if an arrest is made, it is the 'jurisdictional' department that will transport and hold the prisoner, other than that the 'sworn' officer's 'authority' will be upheld by the 'jurisdictional' authority and they will let the courts decide on the 'legality'. The man with the gun makes the rules, the judge decides wihich ones will stick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,253
Messages
1,429,311
Members
61,128
Latest member
greenworld
Back
Top