Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 18, 2017, 04:06:01 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts
CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

 1 
 on: Today at 03:57:46 PM 
Started by CAPSOC_0pur8ur - Last post by NIN
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.

Quote
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.


 2 
 on: Today at 03:09:03 PM 
Started by CAPSOC_0pur8ur - Last post by jeders
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.

 3 
 on: Today at 03:05:53 PM 
Started by Salty_Airman - Last post by LSThiker
I noticed that the Ranger tabs and any berets are not authorized for wear with the ABUs. If this is true, does anyone know if they might be authorized?

It is true.  As far as when they will be authorized, well you are authorized to wear the beret while attending NBB.  Otherwise, not really a high priority.

 4 
 on: Today at 03:03:26 PM 
Started by CAPSOC_0pur8ur - Last post by LSThiker
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. 

 5 
 on: Today at 03:01:24 PM 
Started by Hawk200 - Last post by Salty_Airman

 The uniform itself serves as our statement of who and what we are as an organization.


You can never have enough badges, patches and awards. Start running them down your legs if you need more room. ;)



You for make fun Supreme Leader? To be with camp for reeducation for make of respect.

We could beat the DPRK with a magnet!

 6 
 on: Today at 02:57:14 PM 
Started by Salty_Airman - Last post by Salty_Airman
I noticed that the Ranger tabs and any berets are not authorized for wear with the ABUs. If this is true, does anyone know if they might be authorized?

 7 
 on: Today at 02:49:34 PM 
Started by xray328 - Last post by Offutteer
It's been two or three each year its been offered, the lists for each year (going back to 2011) are on the main scholarship page,  www.capmembers.com/scholarships.  Since the requirements are lower than the regular flight scholarship, I'm sure that every young lady that applies for the CAP flight scholarship also checks the box for the Feik. 

 8 
 on: Today at 01:53:07 PM 
Started by CAPSOC_0pur8ur - Last post by abdsp51
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.

 9 
 on: Today at 01:49:25 PM 
Started by CAPSOC_0pur8ur - Last post by jeders
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'.

 10 
 on: Today at 01:46:13 PM 
Started by CAPSOC_0pur8ur - Last post by CAPSOC_0pur8ur
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.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.362 seconds with 15 queries.
click here to email me