Chatsworth Atv park

[Dragonfly]

Just for the record, Lexington Blvd. in Barnegat is not in an area where ATV's are normally used. It's a small sub-development of duplexes, mostly rentals, that has seen more than its share of vandalism, drug raids, burgularies, and even a heinous murder that as I recall, was drug-related. Not a fun place for cops to respond.

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

I just saw a video of ATV riding at Atco raceway. Anybody know the situation out there. Maybe it's very limited access?

 

[Medford Piney]

it might have been the MX track they have there, but I think it was closed down the sometime last year.

 

[whitingrider]

http://app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080304/NEWS/803040314
I guess this poor cop got attacked. There is no excuse for this behavior, ever.
Tom

 

[Medford Piney]

http://app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080304/NEWS/803040314
I guess this poor cop got attacked. There is no excuse for this behavior, ever.
Tom

These actions are unexcusable, but why is this posted in this thread??? Because the officer asked a question to a 13 year old on an ATV? Or is because the young boy 'bolted' on his ATV after the questioning???

It did not say in the article that an angry crowd of 20 to 30 people on ATV's attacked the officer.

This is an improper place to place this post, because it has 'NOTHING" to do with the park in Chatsworth or for that matter ATV usage at all..

just saying... because someone will twist it into something it's not....

I'm all for responsible regulations on OHV usage and know there are alot of 'bad apples' out there causing a bad reputation for the majority of responsible users, just like there are bad hikers and paddlers leaving trash on the sides of trails and the rivers going throught the pines..


Ok I'll untwist my panties now....

 

[Ben Ruset]

This is an improper place to place this post, because it has 'NOTHING" to do with the park in Chatsworth or for that matter ATV usage at all..

Actually, I'm the one who brought up what happened in Barnegat as an example of why people probably wouldn't want to get photographed as they ride ATV's illegally. I was warning that things could get out of hand like this incident did.

 

[bobpbx]

Actually, I'm the one who brought up what happened in Barnegat as an example of why people probably wouldn't want to get photographed as they ride ATV's illegally. I was warning that things could get out of hand like this incident did.

Well said Ben. Good point. People have memories, which is why I myself will not confront them. I don't mind educating them about where not to go, but that could also work against you. They could "accuse" you of telling the police about them if they are caught. You are suspect since you had contact with them.

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

These actions are unexcusable, but why is this posted in this thread??? Because the officer asked a question to a 13 year old on an ATV? Or is because the young boy 'bolted' on his ATV after the questioning???

It did not say in the article that an angry crowd of 20 to 30 people on ATV's attacked the officer.

Good point. But it would seem to be somehow related to the kid on the ATV. Any updates?

 

[Medford Piney]

Good point. But it would seem to be somehow related to the kid on the ATV. Any updates?

So then if the Earth Liberation Front had members attend meetings and collect pamplets from the Sierra Club and The Pinelands Pres Alliance, and then torched a construction trailer, then was caught with these pamplets, would these Environmental groups then be associated with the crime with the media???

If he was on a Huffy bike, would bicycles then be a factor in the crime? After reading in another article it is alleged that the mother of the kid came out and got into a heated chat with the officer, then someone else came out and escalated the incident further, this person was then informed he would be placed under arrest and during the process the crowd arrived and cause bodily harm to the officer.

I'm not picking sides or wanting an argument, just trying to point out that because the kid was on an ATV, does not make the ATV the issue. It's more then likely poor parenting.

 

[Ben Ruset]

I'm not picking sides or wanting an argument, just trying to point out that because the kid was on an ATV, does not make the ATV the issue. It's more then likely poor parenting.

Go back, reread the thread, and more importantly my message about why I posted the link.

No, it has nothing to do with ATV's. It has everything to do with not confronting or taking pictures of people who are riding illegally. Who knows what the other person may do when you confront them, or when they see you're taking pictures of them.

 

[Medford Piney]

No, it has nothing to do with ATV's.

It has everything to do with not confronting or taking pictures of people
doing anything illegally. Who knows what the other person may do when you confront them, or when they see you're taking pictures of them.

I would agree 100% if your reply was like above. Because in any situation or association we can alway find a minority that can show a case where a particular group is "BAD" and twist it into something else and not deal with the real root of the problem.

Sometimes people will paint a picture to give the appearance that the situation is more then what it is to help "Prove" their stance on something not related to the initial issue at hand.


The Medford Piney..... Fighting for the rights of all.....

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

So then if the Earth Liberation Front had members attend meetings and collect pamplets from the Sierra Club and The Pinelands Pres Alliance, and then torched a construction trailer, then was caught with these pamplets, would these Environmental groups then be associated with the crime with the media??? .... just trying to point out that because the kid was on an ATV, does not make the ATV the issue. It's more then likely poor parenting.

Med, I'm just asking if anybody has the facts. We can speculate all we want, and we can get creative about all kinds of other possible scenarios, but what's the use? The only thing that really matters is the actual scenario. All I've heard is that a kid on an ATV got stopped by a cop, and the kid raced away. Presumably, the cop wanted to apprehend the juvenile offender, but a crowd intervened. Why? Why would a crowd of people attack a police officer in this situation?

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

No, it has nothing to do with ATV's. It has everything to do with not confronting or taking pictures of people who are riding illegally. Who knows what the other person may do when you confront them, or when they see you're taking pictures of them.

Ben, it might be more accurate to say it does have something to do with ATV's. Clearly, you are saying that ATV riders who engage in illegal activities are likely (not necessarily) to be violent people. Otherwise, why would you be reluctant to confront them or document the fact that they are breaking the law?

 

[Ben Ruset]

I'm saying that I wouldn't want to confront anybody in the woods that are doing anything illegal.

Someone hunting illegally? Not going near them.
Someone dumping illegally? Not going to talk to them.
Someone riding ATV's illegally? Not going to confront them.

I have a family, and if something happens to me, it puts my family in jeopardy. If other people want to be eco-warriors and take photos and harass ATV riders, that's all fine. To me, the risk of confronting someone who is doing something illegal and putting myself in harms way is not worth the benefit of stopping someone from riding their ATV.

I also would not try to stop someone robbing a store, or try to stop a carjacker.

 

[bobpbx]

I'm saying that I wouldn't want to confront anybody in the woods that are doing anything illegal.

Someone hunting illegally? Not going near them.
Someone dumping illegally? Not going to talk to them.
Someone riding ATV's illegally? Not going to confront them.

I have a family, and if something happens to me, it puts my family in jeopardy. If other people want to be eco-warriors and take photos and harass ATV riders, that's all fine. To me, the risk of confronting someone who is doing something illegal and putting myself in harms way is not worth the benefit of stopping someone from riding their ATV.

I also would not try to stop someone robbing a store, or try to stop a carjacker.

You know, despite all my grumbling about not stopping people in the woods from doing bad things to the environment, I don't think I could stop my body from rushing into a school after a lunatic with a gun (or a church, or mall, wherever). I was really upset that during Columbine, the cops did not rush the school. After all, think about it. Whats the worst that could happen, they'd save a few innocents?

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

I'm saying that I wouldn't want to confront anybody in the woods that are doing anything illegal. ... I also would not try to stop someone robbing a store, or try to stop a carjacker.

I suppose most of us, assuming we don't have law enforcement training and assuming we aren't armed, would be disinclined to confront lawbreakers, though, hopefully, as Bob is saying, we would try to find a way to protect someone who being attacked. Even so, you can often get a quick photo without someone noticing, and you can always phone the police. It seems that a lot of the destructive ORV activity could be reduced, if the illegals knew that people were doing this on a regular basis. If I saw someone dumping illegally, I might not confront them or photograph them, but I could probably get a description to the police within a few minutes. If I see muddy monster trucks in Wharton, you can bet I'm going to report them, whether I saw them in the act or not. These are the people who really give the ORV community a black eye.

 

[Ben Ruset]

You know, despite all my grumbling about not stopping people in the woods from doing bad things to the environment, I don't think I could stop my body from rushing into a school after a lunatic with a gun (or a church, or mall, wherever). I was really upset that during Columbine, the cops did not rush the school. After all, think about it. Whats the worst that could happen, they'd save a few innocents?

If I get hurt, I'm out of work, which means that my family is screwed. Ensuring that my wife and two year old daughter are safe and that there's food on the table is my first priority, and certainly rank higher up on the scale than helping to enforce the DEP's laws.

In my opinion, if the state feels that ORV riders are such a nuisance, they should get more rangers to patrol.

 

[woodjin]

While getting a picture without being noticed may be a bit difficult. Memorizing a license plate # (in the case of an illegal dumper) or driving away and calling the police seems fairly safe.

Jeff

 

[this_is_nascar]

I suppose most of us, assuming we don't have law enforcement training and assuming we aren't armed, would be disinclined to confront lawbreakers, though, hopefully, as Bob is saying, we would try to find a way to protect someone who being attacked. Even so, you can often get a quick photo without someone noticing, and you can always phone the police. It seems that a lot of the destructive ORV activity could be reduced, if the illegals knew that people were doing this on a regular basis. If I saw someone dumping illegally, I might not confront them or photograph them, but I could probably get a description to the police within a few minutes. If I see muddy monster trucks in Wharton, you can bet I'm going to report them, whether I saw them in the act or not. These are the people who really give the ORV community a black eye.

... and why is that? In the act of doing what? You can (and I have) gotten your rig extremely muddy by doing nothing more that riding on a lega road. You've obviously never been on High Crossing or the dozens and dozens of other legal roads in Wharton.

 

[whitingrider]

Nascar- Agreed. I thought the same thing.
Russ when we take 'Lil Red out we and 'Lil Red will all be muddy- without leaving the road.
Tom