Shot at while on a SAREX

So there was this one time on a SAREX (the beginning of every great story) when we were driving around in our '95 chevy van, looking for an ELT. We stopped along some tiny backroad in the middle of nowhere. The nearest building was a small mobile home about 200 yards away, on the opposite side of the road. As we stepped out, we noticed a 'no trespassing' sign at the entrance to a trail. Assuming the sign was placed with regard to the trail, we ignored it and proceeded to get our L-per reading. About 20 seconds later, we heard a sharp crack that sounded suspiciously like a gunshot. The GTL cautiously peeked around the van and shouted some words that I won't repeat here. We loaded in the van and drove away faster than a fat kid at a dessert bar. I looked out the back window to see an old man wielding a shotgun on the front porch of the mobile home. We heard two more shots as we drove away. As far as I'm aware, the incident was never reported up the chain. Even to this day, those who were there consider it a touchy subject. So yeah, there's my tall tale that actually happened.

If there is any validity to this tale.  Every single one of you are lucky you didn't something to the backside.  And not knowing how recently this occurred that SM on the team needs a stern talking to as well as that GTL as well as retraining.  None of you had any business trespassing and would have served you right if that "old man" as you described made contact. 

A shining example of why the org can't be taken serious in ES.

If there is any validity to this tale.  Every single one of you are lucky you didn't something to the backside.  And not knowing how recently this occurred that SM on the team needs a stern talking to as well as that GTL as well as retraining.  None of you had any business trespassing and would have served you right if that "old man" as you described made contact. 

A shining example of why the org can't be taken serious in ES.

I'd be a little cautious against jumping on the GTL. I've been on SAREXs and actual missions where we were told to "get off my property" (multiple expletives and references to tyrannical government deleted); however, we had never once gone on to any personal property and always remained on a public road. Often times when you get out into certain areas, dressed the way we dress, people take offense and want you gone; regardless of your legal right to be there.

It seems to me some version of this story has been told for years. 

If there is any validity to this tale.  Every single one of you are lucky you didn't something to the backside.  And not knowing how recently this occurred that SM on the team needs a stern talking to as well as that GTL as well as retraining.  None of you had any business trespassing and would have served you right if that "old man" as you described made contact. 

A shining example of why the org can't be taken serious in ES.

I'd be a little cautious against jumping on the GTL. I've been on SAREXs and actual missions where we were told to "get off my property" (multiple expletives and references to tyrannical government deleted); however, we had never once gone on to any personal property and always remained on a public road. Often times when you get out into certain areas, dressed the way we dress, people take offense and want you gone; regardless of your legal right to be there.

A GT has no legal right to tresspass on private party.  This has been discussed numerous times.  The GTL and or SM attached should know this.  You get a hit you call the PD or SO. 

Again I said if there is validity to this story.  There are plenty of folks who would take action and not be kind enough to grant a warning.

A GT has no legal right to tresspass on private party. 

I absolutely agree with you on that one; but nowhere has it been said that anyone was trespassing. It is entirely possible that the crazy old man shot at them simply because they were within his line of sight. It's also possible that they were trespassing, but from the information given by the OP, it's difficult to tell one way or another. So, since neither of us were there, let's not jump up and down on people.

Can we have an update to the MCOC that talks about benefit of the doubt?

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/benefit_of_the_doubt

Short version: in the absence of information otherwise, can CAP-Talk posters give the benefit of the doubt?  Why is everybody spring-loaded into the "THEY WERE WRONG!" mode when something is posted?

I took from OP's story that they were standing on a road, near the entrance to a trail, where a No Trespassing sign was seen, with a house 200 yards away. (this sounds like the opening to the game Zork!)

Its not hard, based on OP's story and giving the benefit of the doubt, to assume that a) it was a public road; b) they did not go down the trail and past the No Trespassing sign because they OP's story never said it was a private road and he didn't mention that they ventured past the sign.

Otherwise:

Can we have an update to the MCOC that talks about benefit of the doubt?

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/benefit_of_the_doubt

Short version: in the absence of information otherwise, can CAP-Talk posters give the benefit of the doubt?  Why is everybody spring-loaded into the "THEY WERE WRONG!" mode when something is posted?

I took from OP's story that they were standing on a road, near the entrance to a trail, where a No Trespassing sign was seen, with a house 200 yards away. (this sounds like the opening to the game Zork!)

Its not hard, based on OP's story and giving the benefit of the doubt, to assume that a) it was a public road; b) they did not go down the trail and past the No Trespassing sign because they OP's story never said it was a private road and he didn't mention that they ventured past the sign.

Otherwise:

^^^ Bingo

Nope no benefit of doubt OP stated they ignored the sign.. 

No tresspassing means just that no tresspassing.  The GT was in the wrong by the OPs own admission and should count themselves lucky warning shots are all they got.  Again as I have stated if there is "validity" to this story...   

My topics always seem to be so controversial :/   We didn't go tromping around on their property, we stopped on the side of the road, near a no trespassing sign. The sign was posted at the entrance to a trail. As far as we can tell, the man probably thought we were about to hunt on his land, considering the camouflage and orange vests we wore.

Nope no benefit of doubt OP stated they ignored the sign.. 

Just so you know, it's stuff like this that makes everyone hate CAPTalk, just sayin'.

Nope no benefit of doubt OP stated they ignored the sign.. 

Just so you know, it's stuff like this that makes everyone hate CAPTalk, just sayin'.

Just so you know.  Its in black and white.  Either the story is true in wich case the OP got what was coming to him/her or its pure bs meant to make him/her look tactikewl. 

Still goes back to the post the OP trespassed and owner took action.  Bad judgement used by the GTL and or SM. 

No benefit of the doubt applies since the OP admitted to the infraction.  But I guess no trespassing means something different in your neck of the woods.

As far as I'm aware, the incident was never reported up the chain.

Aside from whether this actually happened or not debate, this "not reporting" is absolutely wrong.  If you were shot at during a SARX [or even a real mission] and you were on appropriate legal ground, then the IC and local authorities should be notified.  At the very minimum, the IC should be told about this.  Considering this was a SARX, it is possible that another ground team could have been dispatched to hunt for this practice ELT and made the same stop.  If the land owner shot at you and missed, the next team may not have been lucky.

This is a critical information piece for an IC and mission staff.  Not reporting this should result in pulled GTL qualifications and Senior Member disciplinary action. 

Nope no benefit of doubt OP stated they ignored the sign.. 

Just so you know, it's stuff like this that makes everyone hate CAPTalk, just sayin'.

Just so you know.  Its in black and white.  Either the story is true in wich case the OP got what was coming to him/her or its pure bs meant to make him/her look tactikewl. 

Still goes back to the post the OP trespassed and owner took action.  Bad judgement used by the GTL and or SM. 

No benefit of the doubt applies since the OP admitted to the infraction.  But I guess no trespassing means something different in your neck of the woods.

You are clearly reading an entirely different story than the rest of us. Nowhere in it does the OP say that they actually trespassed; in fact his later post clarified that they remained on the road.

This is a critical information piece for an IC and mission staff.  Not reporting this should result in pulled GTL qualifications and Senior Member disciplinary action. 

As a mission staffer, I have to agree with this 100%. This is exactly the type of information that needs to make its way to the planning cell so that they know not to send teams into that area, or if it were a real mission, to send them in with LEO escort. That being said, my guess is that it probably was reported, but the OP simply wasn't privy to that conversation.

Nope no benefit of doubt OP stated they ignored the sign.. 

Just so you know, it's stuff like this that makes everyone hate CAPTalk, just sayin'.

Just so you know.  Its in black and white.  Either the story is true in wich case the OP got what was coming to him/her or its pure bs meant to make him/her look tactikewl. 

Still goes back to the post the OP trespassed and owner took action.  Bad judgement used by the GTL and or SM. 

No benefit of the doubt applies since the OP admitted to the infraction.  But I guess no trespassing means something different in your neck of the woods.

I'm clearly reading a different OP's message than you are.

OP said they stopped on a road (public road, I assumed, subsequently confirmed). When they got out, they saw a "no trespassing" sign that they assumed as was associated with the adjacent trail.

Assuming the sign was placed with regard to the trail, we ignored it and proceeded to get our L-per reading.

They ignored the sign (because they were on the public road and didn't intend to go down the trail, thus into the "denied area"), took DF readings, possibly had a dude shoot at them, and left.

Where does it say they ignored the sign and went down the trail (and thus, trespassed)?

It doesn't.

You assumed that because OP said "we ignored the sign" that mean they went blithely up the trail, wonderfully and blissfully trespassing to their heart's content.

Which they didn't. 

Both according to OP's original post (if you read it without bias) and subsequent posts (if you also read it without bias), they did not trespass. They were on a public road to do some DF sweeps.

Thats it.

More importantly is that the OP says he saw an old man on the porch with a shotgun, who apparently
shot at them or fired a weapon to scare them, yet no mention of who resuscitated the IC when they
told him the story, nor how much jail time the old man got.

Go back and read everything I have posted.  There was no bias as you claim.  I have posted that if there was validity multiple times. 

The whole team used bad judgement.  They ignored a no trespassing sign (OPs) own admission.  That road could very well have been someone's property.

So either one of the following is true:

1) This true in which case the team got what they deserved.  Committed an illegal act and jeopardized lives.  And that entire team is darn lucky.  And again that GTL and or SM needs retraining and stern talking too.

2) This is some tactikewl bs story that needs to be called and shut down. 

More importantly is that the OP says he saw an old man on the porch with a shotgun, who apparently
shot at them or fired a weapon to scare them, yet no mention of who resuscitated the IC when they
told him the story, nor how much jail time the old man got.

Jail time more than likely none especially if it was his property.  And they didn't report it.

Go back and read everything I have posted.  There was no bias as you claim.  I have posted that if there was validity multiple times. 

The whole team used bad judgement.  They ignored a no trespassing sign (OPs) own admission.  That road could very well have been someone's property.

So either one of the following is true:

1) This true in which case the team got what they deserved.  Committed an illegal act and jeopardized lives.  And that entire team is darn lucky.  And again that GTL and or SM needs retraining and stern talking too.

2) This is some tactikewl bs story that needs to be called and shut down.

You keep claiming that they trespassed based on the mere presence of a sign by the side of the road.

If the sign is on the property facing the road, likely its saying "beyond here is private property, you'll be trespassing if you go here."

Like this:



If the sign was facing the direction of travel (ie. you're coming up the road, its clearly indicated for you), likely its saying "Hey, don't keep going down this road."

Like this:



OP indicated that the sign was situated in a way that it looked like it was associated with a trail off the road. And that the road was a public road (certainly, OP could have lost the distinction if there was a sign he/she missed, but the word is, the the road was public)

So, based on the story the way its presented, the GT was standing on a public road in the vicinity of a no trespassing sign.

They stayed on the public road.

They didn't stray off the public road (well, probably on the shoulder for safety).

They didn't just ignore the sign and go traipsing across some dude's property, according to OP.

Just because there's a trespassing sign along the side of a road doesn't give a guy license to take pot shots at you because of your proximity to the sign.

And there are plenty of times when that is the case: you drive past an AF base and there are nice "US Gov't Property - No Trespassing" signs every 20 feet on the fence you're driving alongside. That doesn't mean that because you're on a public road and can see the sign that you're actually trespassing on that AF Base.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

So there was this one time on a SAREX (the beginning of every great story) when we were driving around in our '95 chevy van, looking for an ELT. We stopped along some tiny backroad in the middle of nowhere. The nearest building was a small mobile home about 200 yards away, on the opposite side of the road. As we stepped out, we noticed a 'no trespassing' sign at the entrance to a trail. Assuming the sign was placed with regard to the trail, we ignored it and proceeded to get our L-per reading. About 20 seconds later, we heard a sharp crack that sounded suspiciously like a gunshot. The GTL cautiously peeked around the van and shouted some words that I won't repeat here. We loaded in the van and drove away faster than a fat kid at a dessert bar. I looked out the back window to see an old man wielding a shotgun on the front porch of the mobile home. We heard two more shots as we drove away. As far as I'm aware, the incident was never reported up the chain. Even to this day, those who were there consider it a touchy subject. So yeah, there's my tall tale that actually happened.

My topics always seem to be so controversial :/   We didn't go tromping around on their property, we stopped on the side of the road, near a no trespassing sign. The sign was posted at the entrance to a trail. As far as we can tell, the man probably thought we were about to hunt on his land, considering the camouflage and orange vests we wore.

NIN no where in any of these posts does the OP say it was a public road.  Now go back and look at the bolded and italicized parts of his/her first post. 

Again if this is in fact a true story then that entire ground team is lucky no one was hurt and the GTL and SM on it exercised piss poor judgement.  This seems more like a BS tactikewl story to try and make him/her sound cooler than what they are. 

We are just going to have to agree to disagree.