Maryland Man Fined $50 for Picking Berries in Park

[nuhuh]

Fuck off. Jackass

Regardless of where he lives, he's exactly right...authoritarian liberal cesspool.

Both of you fairies should know I write your opinions on toilet paper so I can wipe my ass with them.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Obviously this is harassment, more about police overreach than city ordinances. Clearly picking raspberries, which are there for the picking, isn't "destroying" anything. And if they birds don't get 'em they'll die anyway. It sounds like he can easily get this dismissed, though the harassment shouldn't be going on in the first place.

So tell me, how does a poster in Lost Wages Nevada, over two thousand miles away, know Montgomery County Maryland is an "authoritarian leftists [sic] cesspool"? I'm a hell of a lot closer to it than you and I would never go out on a limb like that.

I did the same thing about a month ago -- found a patch of raspberries growing on the side of the road, in full fruit. Not only did I pick a bagful to take home, I dug up a couple of them and brought them to the front yard where I transplanted them so I'll have nice raspberries for the pickin' in the future. They took, too, so I expect they'll be fruiting for me next year.

Come and get me, copper.

Because Montgomery County is bought and paid for by liberal activists and the democrat party machine.

Amazin'.
Lost Wages Nevada...
Missouri...
"mid-South"...

Homes of the geography-defying psychics.

Go fornicate with your housecat

 

[Pogo]

A city park is planted and maintained. Those are certainly not wild raspberries. So that begs the question. Why plant an edible plant on public ground and then make it illegal to you know eat said plant?

It's a 538 acre park so they certainly could be wild, it's also a public park not a public supermarket.

You seem to be entirely obsessed with money.

Why is that?

If an apple falls off the tree in a federal forest, do you not eat it because some moneychanger didn't make it into a commodity? I mean that's a little weird.

I am already on record that food on unowned land should be free to take, food on property owned by all the people is just that it is mine as much as it is yours. Your right to eat it does not usurp my rights to enjoy it. That's why if you eat it you will pay a fine.

And who gives you the "right" to watch good food rot?

Rights, schmights. If the berry's in my hand, I eat it. If it's in yours, you do. Not that complex.

If you eat you break the law, very simple thing to understand. We are going to have to disagree on this.

We already established that.
But eating is not illegal. And the fact remains, neither the park, nor the city, nor the county, made those berries. Nature made 'em. So that's the authority who says whether we can eat 'em or not. She's already holding them out for us, so we have Her answer.

Now if some entrepreneur has a berry farm with labor to pick and package and ship 'em, that's an entirely different thing. None of that is present here.

How 'bout the dandelions? Can I gather 'em to make a salad? Or wild borage?
Do you understand that things can exist without being commodities?

 

[nuhuh]

A city park is planted and maintained. Those are certainly not wild raspberries. So that begs the question. Why plant an edible plant on public ground and then make it illegal to you know eat said plant?

It's a 538 acre park so they certainly could be wild, it's also a public park not a public supermarket.

You seem to be entirely obsessed with money.

Why is that?

If an apple falls off the tree in a federal forest, do you not eat it because some moneychanger didn't make it into a commodity? I mean that's a little weird.

I am already on record that food on unowned land should be free to take, food on property owned by all the people is just that it is mine as much as it is yours. Your right to eat it does not usurp my rights to enjoy it. That's why if you eat it you will pay a fine.

How is a plant bearing fruit which is edible and nutritious "contributing to your enjoyment" if the fruit is left in place only for the fauna of the region to consume it?
Do animals have more rights than people?
Ya know what? I think you are demonstrating your innate ability to be a controversial asshole and are just spewing a whole lot of shit.

If anything that food would be better at a homeless kitchen or a community food pantry. Not filling the jam jar of the county young Republican who can afford to buy his own.

 

[nuhuh]

It's a 538 acre park so they certainly could be wild, it's also a public park not a public supermarket.

You seem to be entirely obsessed with money.

Why is that?

If an apple falls off the tree in a federal forest, do you not eat it because some moneychanger didn't make it into a commodity? I mean that's a little weird.

I am already on record that food on unowned land should be free to take, food on property owned by all the people is just that it is mine as much as it is yours. Your right to eat it does not usurp my rights to enjoy it. That's why if you eat it you will pay a fine.

And who gives you the "right" to watch good food rot?

Rights, schmights. If the berry's in my hand, I eat it. If it's in yours, you do. Not that complex.

If you eat you break the law, very simple thing to understand. We are going to have to disagree on this.

We already established that.
But eating is not illegal. And the fact remains, neither the park, nor the city, nor the county, made those berries. Nature made 'em. So that's the authority who says whether we can eat 'em or not. She's already holding them out for us, so we have Her answer.

Now if some entrepreneur has a berry farm with labor to pick and package and ship 'em, that's an entirely different thing. None of that is present here.

How 'bout the dandelions? Can I gather 'em to make a salad? Or wild borage?
Do you understand that things can exist without being commodities?

Yes, but nature made those berries on public property, not your property, our property.

 

[Pogo]

A city park is planted and maintained. Those are certainly not wild raspberries. So that begs the question. Why plant an edible plant on public ground and then make it illegal to you know eat said plant?

It's a 538 acre park so they certainly could be wild, it's also a public park not a public supermarket.

You seem to be entirely obsessed with money.

Why is that?

If an apple falls off the tree in a federal forest, do you not eat it because some moneychanger didn't make it into a commodity? I mean that's a little weird.

I am already on record that food on unowned land should be free to take, food on property owned by all the people is just that it is mine as much as it is yours. Your right to eat it does not usurp my rights to enjoy it. That's why if you eat it you will pay a fine.

How is a plant bearing fruit which is edible and nutritious "contributing to your enjoyment" if the fruit is left in place only for the fauna of the region to consume it?
Do animals have more rights than people?
Ya know what? I think you are demonstrating your innate ability to be a controversial asshole and are just spewing a whole lot of shit.

If anything that food would be better at a homeless kitchen or a community food pantry. Not filling the jam jar of the county young Republican who can afford to buy his own.

Maybe "afford" isn't the issue.

See what I mean? Every single one of your posts here seems to be obsessed with money. I asked before, why is that? I got no answer.

 

[Pogo]

You seem to be entirely obsessed with money.

Why is that?

If an apple falls off the tree in a federal forest, do you not eat it because some moneychanger didn't make it into a commodity? I mean that's a little weird.

I am already on record that food on unowned land should be free to take, food on property owned by all the people is just that it is mine as much as it is yours. Your right to eat it does not usurp my rights to enjoy it. That's why if you eat it you will pay a fine.

And who gives you the "right" to watch good food rot?

Rights, schmights. If the berry's in my hand, I eat it. If it's in yours, you do. Not that complex.

If you eat you break the law, very simple thing to understand. We are going to have to disagree on this.

We already established that.
But eating is not illegal. And the fact remains, neither the park, nor the city, nor the county, made those berries. Nature made 'em. So that's the authority who says whether we can eat 'em or not. She's already holding them out for us, so we have Her answer.

Now if some entrepreneur has a berry farm with labor to pick and package and ship 'em, that's an entirely different thing. None of that is present here.

How 'bout the dandelions? Can I gather 'em to make a salad? Or wild borage?
Do you understand that things can exist without being commodities?

Yes, but nature made those berries on public property, not your property, our property.

And once AGAIN it's about "property" and who "owns" something. Obsession.
The public property didn't make the berries. The berries got made exactly the same way before that property was "owned", and they will continue to be made the exact same way when it's "sold". That doesn't make berries. Sunlight and soil and rain do. And that's .... Nature.

No one can "own" Nature. No One.

 

[nuhuh]

It's a 538 acre park so they certainly could be wild, it's also a public park not a public supermarket.

You seem to be entirely obsessed with money.

Why is that?

If an apple falls off the tree in a federal forest, do you not eat it because some moneychanger didn't make it into a commodity? I mean that's a little weird.

I am already on record that food on unowned land should be free to take, food on property owned by all the people is just that it is mine as much as it is yours. Your right to eat it does not usurp my rights to enjoy it. That's why if you eat it you will pay a fine.

How is a plant bearing fruit which is edible and nutritious "contributing to your enjoyment" if the fruit is left in place only for the fauna of the region to consume it?
Do animals have more rights than people?
Ya know what? I think you are demonstrating your innate ability to be a controversial asshole and are just spewing a whole lot of shit.

If anything that food would be better at a homeless kitchen or a community food pantry. Not filling the jam jar of the county young Republican who can afford to buy his own.

Maybe "afford" isn't the issue.

See what I mean? Every single one of your posts here seems to be obsessed with money. I asked before, why is that? I got no answer.

I'm sorry it appears that way to you. I've made my position clear, it's public property and belongs to all of the people not a few people. If there is any money involved it should be donated to rescue centers, homeless kitchens or food pantry's. You want berries go find them where its legal to forage for them not on public property.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

A city park is planted and maintained. Those are certainly not wild raspberries. So that begs the question. Why plant an edible plant on public ground and then make it illegal to you know eat said plant?

It's a 538 acre park so they certainly could be wild, it's also a public park not a public supermarket.

You seem to be entirely obsessed with money.

Why is that?

If an apple falls off the tree in a federal forest, do you not eat it because some moneychanger didn't make it into a commodity? I mean that's a little weird.

I am already on record that food on unowned land should be free to take, food on property owned by all the people is just that it is mine as much as it is yours. Your right to eat it does not usurp my rights to enjoy it. That's why if you eat it you will pay a fine.

How is a plant bearing fruit which is edible and nutritious "contributing to your enjoyment" if the fruit is left in place only for the fauna of the region to consume it?
Do animals have more rights than people?
Ya know what? I think you are demonstrating your innate ability to be a controversial asshole and are just spewing a whole lot of shit.

If anything that food would be better at a homeless kitchen or a community food pantry. Not filling the jam jar of the county young Republican who can afford to buy his own.

I'm wondering if you even read the article bro. Seriously, the man was charged with "destruction of park property to whit: picking berries" I mean the they wrote that shit right on the ticket.

Now, that means all this BS about "should we be able to eat berries in a public park is actually irrelevant.

The debate should be " is picking berries destroying a fruit plant? If the answer is no (and obviously it is) then how can the guy be ticketed for destruction of park property?

Certainly, if the man had dug up a raspberry bush that would be a different matter, digging up a bush definitely destroys the area, and would require someone go in and repair the damage. But picking berries doesn't destroy a bush in any way, shape, or form.

This is a clear case of 3 park officials who went overboard in their interpretation of a law.

Although picking a gallon of berries at a time, I would have told the guy not to come back again myself.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I am already on record that food on unowned land should be free to take, food on property owned by all the people is just that it is mine as much as it is yours. Your right to eat it does not usurp my rights to enjoy it. That's why if you eat it you will pay a fine.

And who gives you the "right" to watch good food rot?

Rights, schmights. If the berry's in my hand, I eat it. If it's in yours, you do. Not that complex.

If you eat you break the law, very simple thing to understand. We are going to have to disagree on this.

We already established that.
But eating is not illegal. And the fact remains, neither the park, nor the city, nor the county, made those berries. Nature made 'em. So that's the authority who says whether we can eat 'em or not. She's already holding them out for us, so we have Her answer.

Now if some entrepreneur has a berry farm with labor to pick and package and ship 'em, that's an entirely different thing. None of that is present here.

How 'bout the dandelions? Can I gather 'em to make a salad? Or wild borage?
Do you understand that things can exist without being commodities?

Yes, but nature made those berries on public property, not your property, our property.

And once AGAIN it's about "property" and who "owns" something. Obsession.
The public property didn't make the berries. The berries got made exactly the same way before that property was "owned", and they will continue to be made the exact same way when it's "sold". That doesn't make berries. Sunlight and soil and rain do. And that's .... Nature.

No one can "own" Nature. No One.

You're both arguing the wrong point, and wrong.

Of course the park owns the berries and the bushes on the property. They don't belong to nature.

If they did, you could just come on my property and pick all the fruit you wanted and I couldn't do anything about it.

But the fact remains. Picking berries does NOT fit the crime of destruction of park property.

 

[Pogo]

You seem to be entirely obsessed with money.

Why is that?

If an apple falls off the tree in a federal forest, do you not eat it because some moneychanger didn't make it into a commodity? I mean that's a little weird.

I am already on record that food on unowned land should be free to take, food on property owned by all the people is just that it is mine as much as it is yours. Your right to eat it does not usurp my rights to enjoy it. That's why if you eat it you will pay a fine.

How is a plant bearing fruit which is edible and nutritious "contributing to your enjoyment" if the fruit is left in place only for the fauna of the region to consume it?
Do animals have more rights than people?
Ya know what? I think you are demonstrating your innate ability to be a controversial asshole and are just spewing a whole lot of shit.

If anything that food would be better at a homeless kitchen or a community food pantry. Not filling the jam jar of the county young Republican who can afford to buy his own.

Maybe "afford" isn't the issue.

See what I mean? Every single one of your posts here seems to be obsessed with money. I asked before, why is that? I got no answer.

I'm sorry it appears that way to you. I've made my position clear, it's public property and belongs to all of the people not a few people. If there is any money involved it should be donated to rescue centers, homeless kitchens or food pantry's. You want berries go find them where its legal to forage for them not on public property.

Those are the same thing dood.

I already DO forage for berries on public property. Not a thing in the world wrong with that. The only way that would be wrong would be if I then let them spoil without using them. And that doesn't happen. Especially with raspberries or huckleberries.

But that's exactly what would happen in your scenario where your "right" to "enjoy" looking at raspberries trumps my "right" to eat them --- they go to waste.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Does anyone else find it absolutely surreal that in the same country where grown ass men can riot and burn and loot an entire town and not go to prison another man could be ticketed for picking raspberries at a public park? I mean God damned.

 

[nuhuh]

It's a 538 acre park so they certainly could be wild, it's also a public park not a public supermarket.

You seem to be entirely obsessed with money.

Why is that?

If an apple falls off the tree in a federal forest, do you not eat it because some moneychanger didn't make it into a commodity? I mean that's a little weird.

I am already on record that food on unowned land should be free to take, food on property owned by all the people is just that it is mine as much as it is yours. Your right to eat it does not usurp my rights to enjoy it. That's why if you eat it you will pay a fine.

How is a plant bearing fruit which is edible and nutritious "contributing to your enjoyment" if the fruit is left in place only for the fauna of the region to consume it?
Do animals have more rights than people?
Ya know what? I think you are demonstrating your innate ability to be a controversial asshole and are just spewing a whole lot of shit.

If anything that food would be better at a homeless kitchen or a community food pantry. Not filling the jam jar of the county young Republican who can afford to buy his own.

I'm wondering if you even read the article bro. Seriously, the man was charged with "destruction of park property to whit: picking berries" I mean the they wrote that shit right on the ticket.

Now, that means all this BS about "should we be able to eat berries in a public park is actually irrelevant.

The debate should be " is picking berries destroying a fruit plant? If the answer is no (and obviously it is) then how can the guy be ticketed for destruction of park property?

Certainly, if the man had dug up a raspberry bush that would be a different matter, digging up a bush definitely destroys the area, and would require someone go in and repair the damage. But picking berries doesn't destroy a bush in any way, shape, or form.

This is a clear case of 3 park officials who went overboard in their interpretation of a law.

Although picking a gallon of berries at a time, I would have told the guy not to come back again myself.

I read the article and several versions. Picking berries can can interfere with the reproduction cycle of fruit bearing plants, so you can do actual damage. The person the article was about was wrong for taking so much product he certainly is a greedy pig. That notwithstanding I already said the police exceeded their authority but that's not the point. The man shouldn't have been in there doing that in the first place.

 

[nuhuh]

I am already on record that food on unowned land should be free to take, food on property owned by all the people is just that it is mine as much as it is yours. Your right to eat it does not usurp my rights to enjoy it. That's why if you eat it you will pay a fine.

How is a plant bearing fruit which is edible and nutritious "contributing to your enjoyment" if the fruit is left in place only for the fauna of the region to consume it?
Do animals have more rights than people?
Ya know what? I think you are demonstrating your innate ability to be a controversial asshole and are just spewing a whole lot of shit.

If anything that food would be better at a homeless kitchen or a community food pantry. Not filling the jam jar of the county young Republican who can afford to buy his own.

Maybe "afford" isn't the issue.

See what I mean? Every single one of your posts here seems to be obsessed with money. I asked before, why is that? I got no answer.

I'm sorry it appears that way to you. I've made my position clear, it's public property and belongs to all of the people not a few people. If there is any money involved it should be donated to rescue centers, homeless kitchens or food pantry's. You want berries go find them where its legal to forage for them not on public property.

Those are the same thing dood.

I already DO forage for berries on public property. Not a thing in the world wrong with that. The only way that would be wrong would be if I then let them spoil without using them. And that doesn't happen. Especially with raspberries or huckleberries.

Then we disagree. Good luck in your berry adventures.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Obviously this is harassment, more about police overreach than city ordinances. Clearly picking raspberries, which are there for the picking, isn't "destroying" anything. And if they birds don't get 'em they'll die anyway. It sounds like he can easily get this dismissed, though the harassment shouldn't be going on in the first place.

So tell me, how does a poster in Lost Wages Nevada, over two thousand miles away, know Montgomery County Maryland is an "authoritarian leftists [sic] cesspool"? I'm a hell of a lot closer to it than you and I would never go out on a limb like that.

I did the same thing about a month ago -- found a patch of raspberries growing on the side of the road, in full fruit. Not only did I pick a bagful to take home, I dug up a couple of them and brought them to the front yard where I transplanted them so I'll have nice raspberries for the pickin' in the future. They took, too, so I expect they'll be fruiting for me next year.

Come and get me, copper.

Regardless of where he lives, he's exactly right...authoritarian liberal cesspool.

Nonsense.

Lawmakers in Texas are doing everything they can to deny a woman her right to privacy, by increasing the authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty.

There are counties in Alabama still denying same-sex couples access to marriage law in violation of the Constitution.

And you've got republicans clamoring to 'repeal' the 14th Amendment and 'deport' US citizens for no other reason than who their parents are.

Given the dismal history of conservative authoritarianism and hostility toward citizens' civil rights, and the fact that for decades liberals have fought to protect and defend the rights of citizens, often against conservative efforts repugnant to the Constitution, you and others on the right can stow that moronic tripe about 'authoritarian liberals' simply because someone isn't allowed to pick berries.

 

[Missourian]

Obviously this is harassment, more about police overreach than city ordinances. Clearly picking raspberries, which are there for the picking, isn't "destroying" anything. And if they birds don't get 'em they'll die anyway. It sounds like he can easily get this dismissed, though the harassment shouldn't be going on in the first place.

So tell me, how does a poster in Lost Wages Nevada, over two thousand miles away, know Montgomery County Maryland is an "authoritarian leftists [sic] cesspool"? I'm a hell of a lot closer to it than you and I would never go out on a limb like that.

I did the same thing about a month ago -- found a patch of raspberries growing on the side of the road, in full fruit. Not only did I pick a bagful to take home, I dug up a couple of them and brought them to the front yard where I transplanted them so I'll have nice raspberries for the pickin' in the future. They took, too, so I expect they'll be fruiting for me next year.

Come and get me, copper.

Regardless of where he lives, he's exactly right...authoritarian liberal cesspool.

Based on.... what?
Can't be geography.

Or are you gonna tell us in a Tina Fey-as-Sarah Palin voice that you can see Montgomery County Maryland from your house?

Born and raised in Tacoma Park, MD.

Best of both worlds, the crime from the District and liberal authoritarian utopia of Montgomery County.

My Folks go back every couple of years, and my brother lives in NoVa...but I left after graduation and never looked back.

Found a place more like Garrett County, where my family is from. The liberals gerrymandered them to get rid of the last Republican stronghold.

Where I live, foraging and hunting is encouraged by MDC (Missouri Department of Conservation)...all they ask is no digging.

Conservation Regulations | Area Specific Regulations

 

[Pogo]

Picking berries can can interfere with the reproduction cycle of fruit bearing plants, so you can do actual damage.

​

Holy shit, the contortions some will go through when they've lost an argument....

 

[nuhuh]

Picking berries can can interfere with the reproduction cycle of fruit bearing plants, so you can do actual damage.

​

Holy shit, the contortions some will go through when they've lost an argument....

I wasn't kidding. HS976/HS220: Reproductive Growth and Development of Blueberry This is why novices can wreak tremendous damage.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Fuck off. Jackass

Regardless of where he lives, he's exactly right...authoritarian liberal cesspool.

Both of you fairies should know I write your opinions on toilet paper so I can wipe my ass with them.

Yeah...After all, the ONLY opinion that matters is YOURS....
Way to go ,butt paste