Park Ranger Girl tasers man in the back for... walking his dogs

[Mxpe78a]

I too agree with TM7. maybe the guy was walking away to get his dog. He asked if he was being detained and received no reply. The ranger made no effort to detain him.

[ironglow]

   He should have said..."DON'T TAZE ME BRO"..
     But then, she may have tazed him till he said "DON'T TAZE ME SIS"..    Some days ya just can't win !

[Stillkickin]

Would somebody from California let us know how this finally plays out after the emotion explosion dies out, all the facts are known, and logic prevails? 

[OldSchoolRanger]

They [Tasers] can be deadly and should be treated as a deadly weapon.  A taser should never be used unless there is justification based upon defense of life or a deadly threat.
NGH

 NGH - I'm sorry but I have to disagree with the above two comments.
 If the Taser is treated the same as a deadly weapon, then should an officer shoot someone with his service pistol, instead of Tasering him?
 
 If the situation is based upon defense of life or deadly threat, the officer is justified to use his gun instead.  So why should the officer bother to Tase the person instead of shooting him/her.  That's like saying you should bring a knife to a gun fight.
 
 

[evidrine]

A tazer is a less than lethal "weapon". Yes it is a weapon, and should be treated as such.

[Blackhawker]

Seems like Police brutality to me or at least a long drawn out law suit for it.  Are we in for more riots in L.A. or something?

[quickdtoo]

Would somebody from California let us know how this finally plays out after the emotion explosion dies out, all the facts are known, and logic prevails?

The latest information is at your finger tips, search engines are you friend. 

Tim


http://halfmoonbay.patch.com/articles/nps-investigating-use-of-stun-gun-in-leash-law-incident

NPS Investigating Use of Stun Gun in Leash Law Incident

Encounter entered "different realm" when Montara man gave ranger a fake name, an NPS spokesman said.
 
By Camden Swita
Email the author
 January 31, 2012

The National Parks Service is investigating a ranger’s use of her stun gun in subduing a Montara resident before arresting him in the Rancho Corral de Tierra open space area Sunday afternoon.

The ranger, who the NPS is not naming at this time, claims Gary Hesterberg was illegally walking one of his dogs off-leash, knowingly gave her a fake name when she questioned him and tried to flee the scene after she told him several times to stay, Howard Levitt, spokesman for the service, said.

She also said she pursued Hesterberg for a bit before using her stun gun to stop him.

But Levitt said that the ranger wasn’t there Sunday afternoon even to write tickets for off-leash dogs let alone arrest anyone or to use force. Rather, she was there to educate dog walkers about the new leash laws the service is imposing since Rancho Corral de Tierra was absorbed into the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in 2011.

The encounter “moved into a different realm” when Hesterberg, who wasn’t carrying ID, gave her a fake name, Levitt said.

“Routinely, when a law enforcement officer of any kind encounters a contact, even if it’s for education purposes, the first question is going to be who they are talking to, for identification or for someone’s name,” Levitt explained. “He didn’t have ID and gave a name that turned out to not be his actual name, that in checking that out—it’s standard procedure to run somebody’s name when you’re dealing with someone who might be a danger—she asked him to remain on the scene, as we understand it, and more than once he refused to stay there.”

In other words, Levitt said, the ranger claims this had gone beyond anything related to an off-leash dog.

Still, the NPS will now interview any possible witnesses and review the apparent facts of the incident to determine if, even in this “different realm”, the use of force on Hesterberg was warranted and the ranger properly followed all procedures, Levitt said.

Levitt said there’s no Use of Force handbook, as it were, that would set definitive rules for when using a stun gun is okay and when it is not.

“There is obviously an entire range of options available to them, lots of factors that go into making the decision,” Levitt said. “We’re reviewing the incident, there’re a variety of tools and processes and procedures they have available to them.”

Rangers also carry guns, pepper spray and clubs, Levitt said.

In 2009, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals set a judicial standard for the use of a stun gun by police, which would include park rangers as they have the role of a law officer on park property.

In that 3-0 ruling, Judge Kim Wardlaw said, "the objective facts must indicate that the suspect poses an immediate threat to the officer or a member of the public."

Wardlaw went on to say that a stun gun must be used when substantial force is required and other options have been exhausted.

Michelle Babcock said she witnessed nearly the entire encounter between the ranger and Hesterberg with her husband Sunday afternoon, although she arrived too late to hear if Hesterberg had given the ranger a fake name.

According to her written account, Hesterberg seemed confused as to why he was being held at the scene while the ranger contacted her “base”.

“After ten minutes the man asked her again to let him know why he could not leave or just cite him but she gave him no answer,” Babcock wrote. “My husband even asked her why she was not letting the man go on his way and she told him to stay out of it. Eventually, the man just started walking in our direction so he could go home. This really upset the park ranger and she told him to stop and that he could not leave. Once again the man asked why and just told her to give him a ticket or let him know if he was being arrested. Note that he had already leashed his two small dogs and was puzzled at the fact that he could not leave.”

Babcock also attests that Hesterberg said he had health problems before the ranger deployed her stun gun.

“Since she did not respond as to why he was being detained nor tell him the type of jurisdiction she had over him, he started to walk away and she told him that she would tase him if he walked another step. The man replied that he had a heart condition and to not Taser him as it could be life threatening,” Babcock wrote. “He gave her his back to look at me and my husband in disbelief to what was going on and the park ranger fired her Taser at him.”

Levitt said he had not seen, in the ranger’s account, anything about Hesterberg warning her of a heart condition.

The ranger has not been suspended or put on leave during the NPS investigation, and as to what the consequences may be if the service determines she used her stun gun without proper cause, Levitt said it’s hard to tell right now.

Hesterberg was charged with walking his dog off-leash in an area where it is prohibited, knowingly providing a law officer with false information and resisting arrest. He was released from county jail in Redwood City Monday morning.

The incident has left Babcock and her husband confused, if anything, she said.

"How is it possible you would Taser him because initially he didn’t have his dog on a leash?" she wondered in an interview via phone. "It didn’t seem right. How did it get to that point? It’s a very quiet place, there hasn’t been any enforcement there for a very long time. To come in and have something like that happen seems aout of place.”

[Cuts Crooked]

"How is it possible you would Taser him because initially he didn’t have his dog on a leash?" she wondered in an interview via phone. "It didn’t seem right. How did it get to that point"

That's pretty obvious! The man deliberately escalated the situation thinking he could get out of it. Didn't work!

Ain't PMS a wonderful thing?

[no guns here]

Maybe I didn't put my thought down clearly enough... let me see if I can capture them here.
 
The use of a taser can and has killed people.  It is normally a "less than lethal" weapon.  However because it has the capacity to kill (and history of killing) it should NOT be used a weapon of FIRST resort.  It should be used because you need to subdue someone who has a weapon or who is violently resisting.  Think about a 250 lb guy threatening to beat up an officer.  You most likely DON'T need to kill him so a taser would be justified since it is "less than lethal".  Think about a guy with a knife facing two or three cops who have body armor and who have a numerical and tactical advantage.  He most likely doesn't need to be killed, the use of a taser would be appropriate.  Now if the suspect has a firearm then unless you can take him by surprise then a gun is the right response.  To tase a person who is not armed, who has not threatened violence and who is clearly not a menace to the officer, bystanders or himself is absolutely ludicrous (sp?).  A person who is unarmed and who is retreating peaceably doesn't deserve to be subject to a weapon that can kill.  It's easy enough to follow him and call for backup.  One thing the Army taught me for Guard Force was to respond in force and put an intruder at a numerical and tactical disadvantage.  Evidently, cops are taught... give them an order and then use whatever means is necessary to subdue them whether you really need to or not.
 
 
NGH

[hillbill]

Maybe I didn't put my thought down clearly enough... let me see if I can capture them here.
 
The use of a taser can and has killed people.  It is normally a "less than lethal" weapon.  However because it has the capacity to kill (and history of killing) it should NOT be used a weapon of FIRST resort.  It should be used because you need to subdue someone who has a weapon or who is violently resisting.  Think about a 250 lb guy threatening to beat up an officer.  You most likely DON'T need to kill him so a taser would be justified since it is "less than lethal".  Think about a guy with a knife facing two or three cops who have body armor and who have a numerical and tactical advantage.  He most likely doesn't need to be killed, the use of a taser would be appropriate.  Now if the suspect has a firearm then unless you can take him by surprise then a gun is the right response.  To tase a person who is not armed, who has not threatened violence and who is clearly not a menace to the officer, bystanders or himself is absolutely ludicrous (sp?).  A person who is unarmed and who is retreating peaceably doesn't deserve to be subject to a weapon that can kill.  It's easy enough to follow him and call for backup.  One thing the Army taught me for Guard Force was to respond in force and put an intruder at a numerical and tactical disadvantage.  Evidently, cops are taught... give them an order and then use whatever means is necessary to subdue them whether you really need to or not.
 
 
NGH

well that bout says it all rite there. my opinion also.
it would of been easy enough just to follow him back to his car and take his license number while calling for backup. then he could of been charged with the crime of walking little dogs without leashes and hauled off to prison.

[teamnelson]

Probable Cause - walking dogs illegally.


Not carrying ID while walking is still legal in the USofA, even in the Communist State of California.


In the absence of other evidence, upon what grounds did the officer determine the name given was false? That would have to be determined after the fact, with evidence - tie goes to innocence until proven guilty, even if she suspected the name was false.


She asked him to stay put, he failed to comply. She had other options. That some here believe that an officer can do whatever and officer wants to do is scary to me. My people are fully trained in force as a last resort. She violated the principle of proportionality by escalating the use of force in a case of illegally walking a dog, which was the only evidence available to her at the time.

[Casull]

She violated the principle of proportionality by escalating the use of force in a case of illegally walking a dog, which was the only evidence available to her at the time.

 
 
This does not appear to be true.  One of the earlier posts contained information that she determined he gave a false name after contacting her office.

[teamnelson]

She violated the principle of proportionality by escalating the use of force in a case of illegally walking a dog, which was the only evidence available to her at the time.

 
 
This does not appear to be true.  One of the earlier posts contained information that she determined he gave a false name after contacting her office.

Then I'd have to ask if she felt threatened, clearly not as she pursued the suspect in order to taze him in the back. Then I'd have to ask if there was other suspicious activity, bordering probable cause, that lead her to believe the suspect was dangerous and a threat to the public. None of the articles indicate such. The official statement focuses on use of false name as justification for use of force. That still doesn't pass the reasonable sniff test unless its coupled with potential for violence. Rules of engagement should've included unarmed detention, which every armed federal officer is required to be certified in.


The citizenry retains it right to presumed innocence in all situations. I could understand if the suspect had attacked her before fleeing, was covered in blood, appeared to be incoherent, made a verbal threat, or appeared armed and dangerous in some manner. I understand that he did not comply with a stated order ... citizens still have a right to be dealt with as innocent until the facts are determined, and the burden of grace falls on the officer. Reasonable man approach would dictate that in the absence of any mitigating evidence, she violated the principle of proportionality by using a non-lethal weapon when unarmed tactics were more appropriate. If he was too fast, she has a radio and as a federal officer she can relay to state and local from her car.

[scootrd]

So, anyone here in law enforcement that can spell out the rules? If cop says, 'wait here' and hasn't arrested you, and citizen walks off... are they liable to get tazed. How about shooting? Are the rules different for tazering, than they are for shooting?

I'm not an LEO , hoping some on this site that are will chime in . But I do believe they have a right to detain you without arrest while collecting facts and conducting an investigation. I think if became non compliant, they would cuff you. if you became combative they could taze you. 

He was wrong for lying and trying to leave , But I do think if he was not attacking,  her actions were a bit excessive.
it's not like he was robbing a bank or something, he was breaking  rule walking dog. not a case of High crime here.

Gotta watch them Park Ranger gals they obviously take their jobs seriously and take no guff.

[Casull]

I understand that he did not comply with a stated order ... citizens still have a right to be dealt with as innocent until the facts are determined

 
 
It appears, from what I read, that she had probable cause to believe he committed two separate crimes and was in the process of fleeing (albeit slowly) from the LEO.  As for the "facts" those are determined during the trial, certainly not prior to arrest.

[OldSchoolRanger]

......The use of a taser can and has killed people.  It is normally a "less than lethal" weapon.  However because it has the capacity to kill (and history of killing) it should NOT be used a weapon of FIRST resort.  It should be used because you need to subdue someone who has a weapon or who is violently resisting.  Think about a 250 lb guy threatening to beat up an officer.  You most likely DON'T need to kill him so a taser would be justified since it is "less than lethal".  Think about a guy with a knife facing two or three cops who have body armor and who have a numerical and tactical advantage.  He most likely doesn't need to be killed, the use of a taser would be appropriate.  Now if the suspect has a firearm then unless you can take him by surprise then a gun is the right response.  To tase a person who is not armed, who has not threatened violence and who is clearly not a menace to the officer, bystanders or himself is absolutely ludicrous (sp?).  A person who is unarmed and who is retreating peaceably doesn't deserve to be subject to a weapon that can kill.  It's easy enough to follow him and call for backup.  One thing the Army taught me for Guard Force was to respond in force and put an intruder at a numerical and tactical disadvantage.  Evidently, cops are taught... give them an order and then use whatever means is necessary to subdue them whether you really need to or not.
NGH

NGH - Just trying to help you understand, Yes - Tasers have killed people, Yes - Tasers are normally a "less than lethal" weapon, No - Tasers "should NOT be used a weapon of FIRST resort",  - because Tasers were adopted by a lot of Police forces to avoid the use of a blunt force weapon, as a weapon of first resort. 
Your comments - "because it has the capacity to kill (and history of killing)." - is really of no importance, because a lot of things have the capacity to kill & a history of killing.  Tasers are used to subdue someone who you don't wish to permanently injure, and usually are unarmed. 
   [A Taser] "should be used because you need to subdue someone who has a weapon or who is violently resisting." - is also incorrect, because if he has a weapon or is violently resisting, the Ranger is authorize to use a more lethal weapon to defend herself, most likely a impact weapon or firearm.
   "a guy with a knife facing two or three cops who have body armor and who have a numerical and tactical advantage.  He most likely doesn't need to be killed, the use of a taser would be appropriate." -  Apparently, you have never faced a man with a knife (no insult intended), even with a tactical advantage of two or three cops, they would be allowed and wise to shoot the suspect.
   "and who is clearly not a menace to the officer, bystanders or himself is absolutely ludicrous (sp?)" - and how would the officer possibly know that?  Police have to treat every individual as a possible threat until proved otherwise.
   "the Army taught me for Guard Force was to respond in force and put an intruder at a numerical and tactical disadvantage." - the Ranger according to the news story above was waiting for backup, the suspect decide to call her hand before they arrived.  Guard Force is just that to guard a location, if the enemy/intruder retreats, they have accomplished their mission.  A cop is required to enforce the law, if a suspect escapes, they haven't accomplished their mission, which is to protect the public.  Hope this answers your questions, no offense meant.

[scotsman]

The real question in my mind is at what point did we leave behind the time when a park ranger would have said, 'Hey we have a new rule here if you want to walk your dog you have to have a leash'. Detaining someone and checking out a name for dog walking really seems a little silly to me.

[yellowtail3]

There is upset in the GBO world:

Dang, I agree with TM7 on something.  I must be sick...NGH

The world must be nearing an end or something.  I'm actually agreeing with TM7.

Calm down, fellas... no reason for you to be ashamed of publicly taking a reasonable position. The world isn't ending, you're alright, no need to call for a doctor or last rites.

Here's something - the area the guy was walking his dog in only recent came under federal rules. So, he's prob been walking the pups there for a good while. The 'crimes' he committed where a RESULT of Ranger Grrrrrrl's encounter with him. You'll kowtow, by God, or we'll show you who is boss.
Encounters with LEO are dangerous... they're opportunity for things to go wrong. Best not to say ANYTHING to them - assume the worst, don't help them, don't talk to them. It's unfortunate one has to take that position, but LEO has himself to blame for this unhappy situation, where citizens need to be very wary in dealing with LEO.

I saw a good smack or paddling should cure her, but then that's against the rules, isn't it?

Hey does anyone know - if a citizens tazes a cop, what would he be charged with?

[evidrine]

“Since she did not respond as to why he was being detained nor tell him the type of jurisdiction she had over him, he started to walk away and she told him that she would tase him if he walked another step. The man replied that he had a heart condition and to not Taser him as it could be life threatening,” Babcock wrote. “He gave her his back to look at me and my husband in disbelief to what was going on and the park ranger fired her Taser at him.”

 
Eye witnesses say very clearly that the guy was not walking away when the ranger tazed him. I see alot of arguing back and forth here about who was right and who was wrong. Lets not forget that there are witnesses!!!!!!!!!!!  Thats all we need to know. All of the evidence is in the article. Guy is the victim here, park ranger apparently is out of control. End of story.

[OldSchoolRanger]

Probable Cause - walking dogs illegally.


Not carrying ID while walking is still legal in the USofA, even in the Communist State of California.

In the absence of other evidence, upon what grounds did the officer determine the name given was false? That would have to be determined after the fact, with evidence - tie goes to innocence until proven guilty, even if she suspected the name was false.


She asked him to stay put, he failed to comply. She had other options. That some here believe that an officer can do whatever and officer wants to do is scary to me. My people are fully trained in force as a last resort. She violated the principle of proportionality by escalating the use of force in a case of illegally walking a dog, which was the only evidence available to her at the time.

TN - While true, it doesn't hold after you have been stopped for a possible violation of the law, where you have to be identified in order for the situation to be resolved.  Please see previous discussion regarding a similar case regarding ID.

http://www.gboreloaded.com/forums/index.php/topic,244251.0.html

   I believe the article said the Ranger checked with her command regarding his claimed identity.  Regarding your comment: "tie goes to innocence until proven guilty, even if she suspected the name was false." - This applies "if, and after your arrested".  This does not apply during an investigation.
 
  The last comment doesn't hold true, you don't know what evidence were available to the Ranger or what "actions" occurred.  That is why I would withhold judgement until the case is resolved.



 

[evidrine]

The last comment doesn't hold true, you don't know what evidence were available to the Ranger or what "actions" occurred.  That is why I would withhold judgement until the case is resolved.

When you eye witnesses involved, it is pretty much over.
 

[teamnelson]

I always withhold judgment on the SUSPECT until the details are revealed, not the OFFICER. That is the definition of innocent until proven guilty - that is a specific legal phrase applied to the citizen, not the officer.



For reference, if one of my Marines used that level of force while performing LEO duties in Iraq or Afghanistan, they would be taken off duty, there would be an Article 32 investigation, with a potential outcome of NJP or Courts Martial. I've seen a Marine use a .50 cal to shoot a driver found innocent after demonstrating he used all required steps of escalation, and another Marine spend 45 days in the Brig for beating an old man nearly to death while "detaining" him, because the old man did not understand the command due to hearing loss and language barrier. At the minimum, I would advocate to bench the officer and retrain on escalation pending investigation, which may find her actions were righteous.


I do think we have fallen far when we accept a potentially lethal engagement as reasonable response to a dog walking violation.

[yellowtail3]

I do think we have fallen far when we accept a potentially lethal engagement as reasonable response to a dog walking violation.

Bingo!

[OldSchoolRanger]

The last comment doesn't hold true, you don't know what evidence were available to the Ranger or what "actions" occurred.  That is why I would withhold judgement until the case is resolved.

When you eye witnesses involved, it is pretty much over.

Not true.  Every "eyewitness" has a different perception of what actually happened.  I suggest watching the film "Rashomon" by the great Japanese director, Akira Kurosawa who depicts this phenomenon.

[Casull]

I do think we have fallen far when we accept a potentially lethal engagement as reasonable response to a dog walking violation.

 
 
 
Repeating a lie does not make it true.  There were TWO criminal acts here and the dog walking was the lesser one.

[OldSchoolRanger]

I always withhold judgment on the SUSPECT until the details are revealed, not the OFFICER. That is the definition of innocent until proven guilty - that is a specific legal phrase applied to the citizen, not the officer.

For reference, ... At the minimum, I would advocate to bench the officer and retrain on escalation pending investigation, which may find her actions were righteous.
I do think we have fallen far when we accept a potentially lethal engagement as reasonable response to a dog walking violation.

TN - I have no problem with your comment regarding taking the Ranger off the street, until the investigation is resolved.
   Unfortunately, every engagement (with a suspect) is potentially a lethal engagement, so it has to be accepted.  Numerous officers have been killed while handling a "minor" incident.

[Swift One]

The more thats coming out about this, the more I am seeing that the Ranger seems to have self escalated the whole situation by not telling him what he was being detained and held up for.  This is being supported by the witnesses.
 

Levitt said there’s no Use of Force handbook, as it were, that would set definitive rules for when using a stun gun is okay and when it is not
 

Thats a cop out.  We still use hand held stun devices (not tasers) in our facility, and it is CLEARLY written out in the physical force policy and trained to anyone qualifying to carry a stun device on when to and when not to use a stun device.  If they dont have a definitive use of force policy for tasers, then shame on them. You just dont give an LEO a taser and say, "go have fun with it."
 

In 2009, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals set a judicial standard for the use of a stun gun by police, which would include park rangers as they have the role of a law officer on park property.

In that 3-0 ruling, Judge Kim Wardlaw said, "the objective facts must indicate that the suspect poses an immediate threat to the officer or a member of the public."

Wardlaw went on to say that a stun gun must be used when substantial force is required and other options have been exhausted.
 

This right here clearly defines to a degree when you can deploy a taser.  In our facility, our ladder of progression starts with presence, then goes verbalization, physical handling, then pepper spray, then stun device.  Now, you can go straight from verbalization to stun device.  If the guy explodes into immediate violent resistance, assaults the officer, brandishes a weapon (then go lethal force), and things of that nature that would impose an IMMEDIATE THREAT to the officer or public.  The witnesses are saying that he just WALKED away non violently. Sounds to me like repeated orders to stop, then physically attempting to stop the subject should have been done first in this case now that more intell is coming out about it.
 

“After ten minutes the man asked her again to let him know why he could not leave or just cite him but she gave him no answer,” Babcock wrote. “My husband even asked her why she was not letting the man go on his way and she told him to stay out of it.

Ten minutes to run a name?  And not even tell the subject what was going on.  To me this sounds like one of those classic fishing expeditions that alot of cops like to do.  "Come on, let's keep trolling.  There has got to something we can get this guy on." 
 
The guy was wrong for not telling her his correct name and should be held accountable for that- cite his butt for it.  Give another cite for unleashed dogs if you must.  Then be on your way.  Yep, this is beginning to sound more and more like a "I have a badge and can do what I want" deal.  "Citizens are our subordinates."  It will be interesting to see how this all pans out.

[no guns here]

The problem is... the little ranger girl just HAD to push it.  She couldn't talk to the guy as an adult and give him a verbal warning an let him go.  She just had to pursue it and insist on more and more.  It would have been perfectly appropriate to let him go.  It would have been perfectly appropriate to observe him while waiting for backup.  Unfortunately, the little ranger girl got her hackles up because he didn't mind her.  Ohhh the horrors... the sheeple didn't mind and follow her orders without hesitation or question.  Unarmed, no threat presented to anyone, for a very minor infraction and she risks the guy's life for what?  If she had killed him with the taser???  What then?  Much better responses were available.  She escalated without reason.
 
What gets me the most is there are so many people who are more than willing to accept this kind of incident as correct, normal and good.
 
Seriously... is this OKAY to you guys?  This chick should be fired at least.  I bet she went back to the office to a round of high-fives and drinks for taking down that "civilian" who wouldn't mind her and play nice.
 
 
 
NGH
 

[Swift One]

If this is coming out like the witnesses are saying then she is beyond wrong.
 
 SCENARIO: Im at my facility in a recreation yard observing inmates at rec.  I see one that has his personal walkman on.  He isnt supposed to have to in the rec yard.  I walk up to him and ask him to return the walkman to his housing unit.  I notice he doesnt have his ID on (they are supposed to have them on at all times).  I ask him what his name is and he doesnt tell me.  I ask him where his ID is and he calmly starts to walk away from me.  I use a stun device on him without trying anything else.
 
I promise you I would be fired from my job and probably sued by the offender with out the state backing me up in court.  I promise you I would loose that case and be paying the offender some serious money.  Now, If that type of action cannot be done to a prisoner, why can it be done to a civilian?

[BUGEYE]

On an episode of "cops" the dash-cam showed a big guy beat a girl cop nearly to death.
proof positive that girl cops should only be used to frisk "girl" bad guys.