Is Honesty Really the Best Policy?

I see what your casting John and I agree it might not be a big deal.

My paranoid thought on this is IF an LEO is thinking “I’m just going to give the fella a warning for xxxx infraction”, then runs a background, they MAY change their mind and write a ticket.

In your predicament, the record won’t show “lavatory emergency”, it says “guilty”. To POSSIBLY make things worse, if it was me in your shoes I know I would have to tell the second leo the circumstances surrounding the No Wake violation. Then he would just roll his eyes as he’s writing the ticket wondering if it took me days or weeks to come up with that excuse.

In full disclosure I have a wake in the No Wake Zone ticket as well. It’s just so old it was written on a tablet of stone and not entered into the system.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

I see what your casting John and I agree it might not be a big deal.
My paranoid thought on this is IF an LEO is thinking “I’m just going to give the fella a warning for xxxx infraction”, then runs a background, they MAY change their mind and write a ticket.

You don’t have to worry BK. A criminal history isn’t run on a basic stop. If they run your DL they are only getting your driving history.
DT

That’s good to know.

When a MN DNR Co does a 45, are they getting driving violation history and active warrants only? I’m asking cause I don’t know.

I know when I plug in a name into the state on-line system everything from issuing dishonored checks, to driving without a cased gun to hunting without a federal waterfowl stamp to no proof of insurance to not having enough PFD’s on board to having an overweight trailer to speeding is listed. Along with the disposition/sentence for each violation, this includes active warrants.

What I’m getting at is the citation for having an unlawful fire would show up and COULD taint the LEO’s decision. Yes/no?

Food for thought. Merriam Webster’s dictionary definition of maintain.

Maintain

: to keep in an existing state (as of repair, efficiency, or validity) : preserve from failure or decline

I wouldn’t want it in my name regardless, on principle.

The “somebody here is getting a ticket” mindset doesn’t fly with me. That’s sheer laziness. If you can’t wait to give the citation to the actual guilty party then it shouldn’t be written. Sorry your timing wasn’t perfect this time, Ranger Rick, but justice still needs to be your objective. Not blind retribution.

Biggill, you didn’t start it, you didn’t maintain it. You’re responsible only for the actions of the people on your permit, and these guys had their own permit. You’re also not an LEO, so it’s not your responsibility to enforce the park rules.

…you didn’t start it, you didn’t maintain it…it’s not your responsibility to enforce the park rules.

You also don’t have to go sit by it for awhile when you know it’s not permitted. No way the CO gives a ticket if you say, honestly, “Yep, I saw that some other guys had a fire down there last night. I checked in to the site, set up my stuff, and went to bed.”

What I’m getting at is the citation for having an unlawful fire would show up and COULD taint the LEO’s decision.

Which is exactly as it should be…

Michael C. Winther wrote:

You also don’t have to go sit by it for awhile when you know it’s not permitted. No way the CO gives a ticket if you say, honestly, “Yep, I saw that some other guys had a fire down there last night. I checked in to the site, set up my stuff, and went to bed.”

I asked that question. They not only refused to answer it they accused me of changing my story.

I asked that question. They not only refused to answer it they accused me of changing my story.

…because you’d already told them that you did sit by it.
If you never sat by it, and reported that honestly right away, they’d have come back later to issue the ticket.

4 guys at a campsite decide to have a fire that isn’t permitted. Joe lights it, and only Joe feeds it with sticks throughout the night. Bob, Sam, and Billy sit by it and enjoy a few beers. COs show up the next day and ask Bob about it. Bob says, I didn’t light it and didn’t fuel it.
Is Bob guilty of breaking the rule against fires?

Ahh… I’ve come to my last post in this thread.

Since I don’t believe Gillie should have received the citation in the first place (it wasn’t his fire), I don’t believe it should be able to taint an LEO’s decision.

I’m the guy that normally lean to the LEO side.
I’m not the guy that tries to work the system towards an offenders favor.

Had Gill started the fire or even help start the fire, let him burn (so to speak). He did not and doesn’t deserve any fine, penalty record or headache for it.

Like noses everyone has an opinion but my nose is larger than most…no arguing that.

I think they knew all about the fire the night before, but with darkness, probably alcohol and not knowing the number of people decided to wait until the next day when conditions were more in “their” favor for getting a solo. Which, unfortunately for you happened to be yourself.

They knew the answer to the question they asked you, before you answered. Your fate was determined upon your answering it.

CaptainMusky wrote:

I think they knew all about the fire the night before, but with darkness, probably alcohol and not knowing the number of people decided to wait until the next day when conditions were more in “their” favor for getting a solo. Which, unfortunately for you happened to be yourself.

They knew the answer to the question they asked you, before you answered. Your fate was determined upon your answering it.

Exactly. We realized what the fatal mistake was. The chairs were left out in a circle. The came to the camp, dug in the sand and found some coals in the center. Dead giveaway.

THIS is why I like to be honest. But I now realize if they are dead set on giving a ticket, someone is getting one. End of story.

The title of the thread wasn’t suggesting dishonesty is the better route. It’s that my eagerness to admit to be friendly and honest was my downfall. I know now that I need to protect myself. Especially if I run into this guy again. He’s going to get the 5th from me next time.

I also learned that I need to inspect and document what I find in my camp prior to setting up. If I find coals around the camp, I’m taking a picture and saving it to my phone with a time/date stamp. It was there when I arrived and I have proof.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

I see what your casting John and I agree it might not be a big deal.

My paranoid thought on this is IF an LEO is thinking “I’m just going to give the fella a warning for xxxx infraction”, then runs a background, they MAY change their mind and write a ticket.

In your predicament, the record won’t show “lavatory emergency”, it says “guilty”. To POSSIBLY make things worse, if it was me in your shoes I know I would have to tell the second leo the circumstances surrounding the No Wake violation. Then he would just roll his eyes as he’s writing the ticket wondering if it took me days or weeks to come up with that excuse.

In full disclosure I have a wake in the No Wake Zone ticket as well. It’s just so old it was written on a tablet of stone and not entered into the system.

Is this conversation going to a place where relatively minor offenses should be overlooked or expunged because we don’t know everyone’s individual situation? Or that LEOs should only issue citations when the individual really deserves it? Should sportsmen and women be excused reasonable/understandable/unintentional or otherwise minor violations in which they did not violate the spirit of the law?

Various civil rights organizations would like to know!

Biggill, show cleavage, works everytime. Good way to change the subject also.

blank wrote:

<div class=”oembed-wrap”><div class=”fluid-width-video-wrapper” style=”padding-top: 56.2353%;”><iframe src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/dhqH4QpSgBI?feature=oembed&#8221; allow=”autoplay; encrypted-media” allowfullscreen=”” id=”fitvid454702″ frameborder=”0″></iframe></div></div>

That took a lot longer to show up than I thought it would,,,,,,

HRG

1hl&sinker wrote:

Biggill, show cleavage, works everytime. Good way to change the subject also.

HRG

Hot Runr Guy wrote:

That took a lot longer to show up than I thought it would,,,,,,

HRG

Ya know, I was kinda thinking the same. Would it be too much to post the video for “Breaking the Law” by Judas Priest?

biggill wrote:

The title of the thread wasn’t suggesting dishonesty is the better route. It’s that my eagerness to admit to be friendly and honest was my downfall. I know now that I need to protect myself. Especially if I run into this guy again. He’s going to get the 5th from me next time.

I am certainly not in their shoes, but had you been dishonest I think your fate would have been far worse. They knew the answer, they were just looking for someone to admit it. If you plead the 5th, which honestly I am not sure that is necessarily a good idea either because what will that lead to? They aren’t just going to leave you there and say, well, we tried.
They knew a violation happened and you were a prime suspect, so if you pled the 5th, you likely would have been going along for a ride with them IMO.
Unless of course they waited for others to arrive that would fess up, which would be possible, but they likely aren’t going to wait around all day for that violation, they have more policing to do.