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

[teamnelson]

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.

Its not a lie. Only 1 criminal act was verifiable at the scene, that was dog walking. In order to establish that he had provided false information that would require further investigation. Unless you're saying turning his back on the officer was a criminal act. In which case I would have to ask if you would say tasing was warranted because there were 2 acts (quantity) or turning his back (quality).


Truth is, there is no reporting from any source indicating the officer was in danger, nor has NPS mentioned such. They claim it was because he gave false information. Again, unless they drew DNA or took a fingerprint or retinal scan at the scene, exactly how did she determine it was false information, and would that be admissable in court? In order to establish false ID, the officer must establish alternate positive ID. I've yet to read how she did that in the space of time that she interviewed, called, he turned his back, and she tased.


Tell me, in the absence of violence on the part of the SUSPECT, what about this leads you to defend the use of a potentially lethal weapon, particularly since we have evidence that he told the officer of his heart condition?

[Nuke41]

I won’t pretend to know all the details on the incident, so I’ll withhold judgment on the officers’ actions.  With that said, these are the National Park Service policies I found on use of force:

http://www.nps.gov/policy/mp/policies.html#_Toc157232926
“8.3.6    Use of Force
Commissioned employees may use a wide variety of defensive equipment and force options in response to various threats and other enforcement situations. The primary consideration is the timely and effective application of the appropriate level of force required to establish and maintain lawful control.”

http://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/DOrder9.html
“4.5  Use of Force
Commissioned employees may use a wide variety of defensive equipment and force options in response to various threats and other enforcement situations. The primary consideration is the timely and effective application of the appropriate level of force required to establish and maintain lawful control. The only justifications for the use of force are:
To defend self
To defend others
To effect an arrest
To restrain or control violent, threatening, or resistive behavior, or to disperse an unlawful group
Commissioned employees may use deadly force only when necessary; i.e. when the ranger, special agent or USPP officer has an objectively reasonable belief, in light of the facts and circumstances confronting the ranger, agent or officer, that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the ranger, agent or officer, or to another person. If force other than deadly force reasonably appears to be sufficient to accomplish an arrest or otherwise accomplish the law enforcement purpose, that is the preferred level of force. In no instance shall deadly force be utilized unless such use is objectively reasonable under the circumstances. "Deadly force" is the use of any force that is likely to cause death or serious physical injury. Deadly force does not include force that is not likely to cause death or serious physical injury, but unexpectedly results in such death or injury.”

NPS policy may be more detailed than what I can find online; at least I hope it is.  Policy should define whether Tasers are considered deadly force or not.  If they are considered non-lethal force then specific guidance should be issued on when they are appropriate to use.

[quickdtoo]

http://www.nps.gov/goga/parknews/law-enforcement-incident-in-rancho-corral-de-tierra.htm

Law Enforcement Incident in Rancho Corral de Tierra

Date: January 31, 2012
Contact: Howard Levitt, , 415 561-4730

Golden Gate National Recreation Area shares the general public's concern over the unfortunate incident between a National Park Service law enforcement ranger and a man walking his dog off leash at Rancho Corral de Tierra, in San Mateo County, on Sunday, January 29, 2012.As is standard practice, the park has initiated a review of the incident, which will be concluded in the next two weeks.At that time, another statement will be released.

According to the information available to the park at this point, the incident began as a routine educational contact about the National Park Service rules on dog walking.The incident developed into a more serious law enforcement situation when the person being contacted provided false information to the ranger, and refused to heed repeated orders to remain at the scene while the ranger was in contact with the park dispatch center to confirm his identity.

In December 2011, Rancho Corral de Tierra came under the management of the National Park Service. Golden Gate National Recreation Area will continue to work hard to build close partnerships with the existing users of, and the communities that surround, Rancho Corral de Tierra.

-NPS-
 

[Casull]

so he left like any free person would after asking what's up and could I leave.....no answer means no answer.

 
 
I think you're just making up facts to fit your preconceived notion.
 
 

refused to heed repeated orders to remain at the scene while the ranger was in contact with the park dispatch center to confirm his identity.

 
Doesn't sound like "no answer" to me.

[evidrine]

"refused to heed repeated orders to remain at the scene while the ranger was in contact with the park dispatch center to confirm his identity."
...is coming from a news reporter.
 
Totally different from what is being said by witnesses. C'mon people, doest take a whole lot to see what happened here. You dont even have to take the word of the guy or the ranger, just ask the by-standers that were there!!!!! According to them he wasnt even walking away when he was tased. Lets just call it like it is. Authority abuse. Guy did not deserve to be tased. Ranger used unnessesary force. Open and shut case. Why so much debate?

[Casull]

C'mon people, doest take a whole lot to see what happened here

 
 
Yep, you're right.  Guilty.  Next matter.     

[yellowtail3]

Seriously... is this OKAY to you guys? 

It is NOT okay with me - that's why I started the thread.

http://www.nps.gov/goga/parknews/law-enforcement-incident-in-rancho-corral-de-tierra.htm

Law Enforcement Incident in Rancho Corral de Tierra

Date: January 31, 2012
Contact: Howard Levitt, , 415 561-4730...

...According to the information available to the park at this point, the incident began as a routine educational contact about the National Park Service rules on dog walking.The incident developed into a more serious law enforcement situation when the person being contacted provided false information to the ranger, and refused to heed repeated orders to remain at the scene while the ranger was in contact with the park dispatch center to confirm his identity.

First the usual disclaimer that I wasn't there, blah blah blah... but I think I can speculate on what happened, I imagine it went something like this:
Ranger Grrrrrrl told the guy he couldn't walk his doggies off leash. He said something like, I've been walking my dogs here for years! to which she sharpened voice, and told him he could no longer, and "You need to get them leashed, NOW". He might have come back with some flip comment... "Don't you folks have anything useful to do? Is the what I'm getting for my tax dollars, that I can no longer walk my doggies off leash, because this is now federal land?" Ranger Grrrrrrl asks name; dude is thinking, "Oh geez... these guys are gonna jack me up for this. "My name is Tyrone" or whatever...


...and the witnesses fill us in on the rest, which end with citizen being assaulted by gov't agent.


Something like that.

[BUGEYE]

If a cop said "stay"  I would be rooted to that spot.
my fear is a cop ordering me out of my truck, and then shooting me when I reach for my cane.
from what little I've seen, they don't have a lot of patience when you try to explain a medical condition.

[evidrine]

Lets also not forget that the guy did put his dogs on thier leishes after he was told to. Just thought I would point that out. 

[no guns here]

that's a rational fear in today's irrational police state...
 
 
NGH

[ironglow]

"refused to heed repeated orders to remain at the scene while the ranger was in contact with the park dispatch center to confirm his identity."
...is coming from a news reporter.
 
Totally different from what is being said by witnesses. C'mon people, doest take a whole lot to see what happened here. You dont even have to take the word of the guy or the ranger, just ask the by-standers that were there!!!!! According to them he wasnt even walking away when he was tased. Lets just call it like it is. Authority abuse. Guy did not deserve to be tased. Ranger used unnessesary force. Open and shut case. Why so much debate?

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
  Next one wonders..who the "bystanders" were.. the dog walker's beer buddies ?  We just don't know enough to be sure..

[evidrine]

Grounds for tasing = 0 (zero)
 
This much we do know.

[Casull]

We just don't know enough to be sure..

 
 
Now, that is true.

[gypsyman]

This reminds me of an incident 20+ years ago in Detroit. Affirmative action forced the Detroit PD to hire more women and blacks. After going through police training, a black women the first day on the job, shot her partner,(white male,15-20 years experience), because he was going to drive the patrol car. Goes to show you, keep them barefoot and pregnant, alot less problems. gypsyman

[scotsman]

    Here in a simple statement BUGEYE has given the most credible evidence of our slide into a police state. That citizens fear that one 'wrong' move could in fact get them killed,shot, tased, or whacked with a baton. And that they have very little in the way of protection by the courts.

If a cop said "stay"  I would be rooted to that spot.
my fear is a cop ordering me out of my truck, and then shooting me when I reach for my cane.
from what little I've seen, they don't have a lot of patience when you try to explain a medical condition.

[OldSchoolRanger]

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."

Swift - I really don't think that was a "cop-out", I think it was a lack of knowledge on the part of Howard Levitt the spokesman for the service.  If you look at Post #63, you will see that the National Park Service does have a use of force policy.  It's just that Levitt, wasn't informed enough to mention it or know about it.  That's usually the problem with those professional public relations, "information" business types.    They just throw out what they perceive as the facts, without any actual knowledge of the job.

“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.

Regarding the Ranger telling Michelle Babcock's husband to "stay out of it".  If you are a CO, as your posts lead me to believe, this should be obvious.  Would you allow another inmate to insert themselves into a situation where you are confronting another inmate?  Think about it.  I think not.

There are times when it does take longer to run a name.  Try running a person with a Hispanic (apologies to those of Hispanic heritage in advance) name sometime.  Problem 1 - they don't speak English, Problem 2 - they speak English, but pretend they don't speak English, Problem 3 - They are being evasive, about their name, Problem 4 - They give you their real first name as their last name, and vice versa, Problem 5 - They give you their real first name and their mothers maiden name as a surname, Problem 6 & 7 - They give you a false first name and their mother's surname or the father's surname, Problem 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, - They lie to you outright, and give you numerous false names, with different spellings. Problems 17 thru 25 - Variations of all the above.  Now you can be sure that the contact and "name check" will possibly take quite more than 10 minutes, and that's not even taking into consideration the amount of radio traffic.  That is not trolling, or a "classic fishing expedition" that is trying to resolve a situation correctly.

Your correct, the guy should have been "cited" as you say, but, and the big but is, who should be cited?  Should the citation be issued to "John Swift", because that's who he claims he is?  Absence proof of positive ID, you cannot issue a citation.  The individual must be taken to, (in this case) a Ranger station to verify his ID.  This entire episode would have been avoided if Mr. "walking his dogs", would have provided correct information regarding his identity, in the beginning.

[OldSchoolRanger]

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.

scotsman - That point in time occurred when people started believing the saying: "if it feels good, do it", and then proceeded to do so, without any regard to the consequences.

I do agree with your point, but a lot of LE agencies are starting to follow the "broken windows" approach to law enforcement.

[OldSchoolRanger]

Lets also not forget that the guy did put his dogs on thier leishes after he was told to. Just thought I would point that out. 

So in your opinion, if you correct a situation, it's the same as saying it never happened?  Just asking.

[evidrine]

The fact that he was stopped is not the issue here. The fact the he was detained for questioning is aslo not the issue. Even the fact that he supposedly gave a false name is still not the issue. Non of this matters. What matters is that you have a guy who gets tased in the back after putting his dogs back on their leashes and turning around to face another direction. Witnesses have already stated that he was not attempting to walk away when he was tased. It was a unnecessary use of force with a "weapon" on an unarmed cooperative citizen. You can analize it up and down, left and right, anyway you want. It still should not have heppend and the officer was completely in the wrong on this matter. Should have never happend. You give cartain people special power over others and you eventually have a situation like this. Thats the nature of the beast. It happenes everyday and people still act suprised. I have a lot of respect for Law Enforcement Officers, but I will not make excuses for them.

[Casull]

I have a lot of respect for Law Enforcement Officers, but I will not make excuses for them.

 
 
Or, apparently, wait for all the facts before proceeding to judgement against them.

[evidrine]

Why complicate things? Guy did not have a weapon, guy did not get violent, guy did not try to flee. No grounds for being tased what so ever. All of the facts are with the eye witnesses. Simple, simple, simple.
 
 
 

[evidrine]

Lets face the crude facts. Drug dealer gets caught dealing, had drugs in hand, While being arrested guy tells office F.U. to face. As much as it sucks the officer has no grounds for tasing!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Just and example, but gets the poing accross. A taser is a weapon and should be used only when necessary. In the case of the guy walking his dogs, you tell me at which time was it necessary. I keep saying it but it fails to get through, witnesses make all of the difference here.

[Casull]

Why complicate things?

 
 
 
Perhaps because the "eye witnesses" might have the same attitude towards LEO's that you seem to have.

[BUGEYE]

we all know that if you piss-off a woman you had better start to being on your best behavior.
the ranger was within her rights to detain the man.  you don't have to have cuffs on to be detained.
it just sounds to me like some animal lovers that I know who get beligerent if you say anything about their dog or cat.  I'll bet he plays nice the next time.

[evidrine]

Why complicate things?

 
 
 
Perhaps because the "eye witnesses" might have the same attitude towards LEO's that you seem to have.

I do have friends and family in law enforcement. Even they dont sit back and pretend that things this never happen.

[OldSchoolRanger]

The fact that he was stopped is not the issue here. The fact the he was detained for questioning is aslo not the issue. Even the fact that he supposedly gave a false name is still not the issue. Non of this matters. ...

   None of it matters??

... What matters is that you have a guy who gets tased in the back after putting his dogs back on their leashes and turning around to face another direction. ...

   So what your saying is that no matter what the circumstances were, the Ranger was wrong?   Are you also in favor of lynching without the benefit of a trial?  Because that is what you are saying.

...Witnesses have already stated that he was not attempting to walk away when he was tased. It was a unnecessary use of force with a "weapon" on an unarmed cooperative citizen. ...

   As I stated earlier, witnesses may be proven wrong, or may have actually not seen or heard what they claimed to have heard or seen.  It's up to the courts to determine whether it was an in your words: "unnecessary use of force with a "weapon" on an unarmed cooperative citizen". 
   That's why I withhold judgement.

...  You can analize it up and down, left and right, anyway you want. It still should not have heppend and the officer was completely in the wrong on this matter. Should have never happend. You give cartain people special power over others and you eventually have a situation like this. Thats the nature of the beast. It happenes everyday and people still act suprised. I have a lot of respect for Law Enforcement Officers, but I will not make excuses for them.

   It didn't have to happen, all "Mr. dog walker" had to do was provide his correct name & address, I'm sure that all that would have happened is that "Mr. dog walker" would have received a citation.  The choice was his, and his alone, everything else sprang from his actions.  Your 100% correct, in saying: "It happenes everyday and people still act suprised." 
   Young men shoplifting act surprised when they get caught, people speeding are surprised when they are summonsed, etc..  Yup, you can say it happens everyday when people do something, that gets them in trouble, and they get caught. Act Surprised!

[evidrine]

"The fact that he was stopped is not the issue here. The fact the he was detained for questioning is aslo not the issue. Even the fact that he supposedly gave a false name is still not the issue. Non of this matters. ..."

   None of it matters??

  None of it matters when the subject at hand is the tasing. We can all agree that he "broke the law" by not having his dogs leashed and that he gave false information. However, if the guy would have gotten violent, then you can use a "weapon" to subdue. Not in anyway was the officer at risk or in danger.
Keep in mind that an office has the right to use whatever force is necessary to keep a person complient, I guess you could say that this is not a case of unecessary force, but excessive forece. A taser should not have been used in this particular case. Plain and simple.
 
We keep getting distracted from the subject. Did she need to deploy her taser? No.

[yellowtail3]

I've noticed lately, that when cops use force, officialdom often uses the word deploy, referring to police use of force. I think this means... deploy is justifiable ('Deputy Inspector Bolonga deployed his pepper spray against three dangerous but unarmed & peaceful women corralled behind a police barrier'). I'm wondering.. if the dog walker had zapped Ranger Grrrrl with a tazer, would that have been a case of him deploying his tazer? So I'm thinking that deploy means, done by the state and A-OK. Yesno?

(I used to think it meant a Med or WestPac cruise)

[quickdtoo]

Perhaps Margaret Anderson's death had a lot to do with the ranger's actions.

Tim

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2017293133_guest21jarvis.html

Originally published Friday, January 20, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Margaret Anderson did what park rangers do — keeping visitors safe

Slain National Park Ranger Margaret Anderson left Paradise on the first day of the new year to do what she did best — keep visitors safe, writes National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis. A memorial fund has been established for Anderson's daughters.

By Jonathan B. Jarvis

Memorial Fund
THE NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION has established a memorial fund for Margaret Anderson's daughters at www.nationalparks.org/MargaretAnderson

ON the morning of the first day of this new year, park employees at Mount Rainier were doing what they do every day: gearing up to welcome visitors to the mountain.

After days of gray cold, the sun came out that Sunday, inviting friends and families to head to the park to play in the snow.

National Park Ranger Margaret Anderson was at Paradise, the park's most popular winter destination, doing what she did best: making sure that those who made the 12-mile drive from the Longmire entrance would have a safe visit.

At an elevation of 5,400 feet, Paradise is a magnet for sledders, cross-country skiers, snowshoers and families with small children. More than 100 people had already arrived. One of them, Jeremy Best, told the Tacoma News-Tribune that Ranger Anderson helped him and his friends from his Tacoma church find a place to park.

He remembered her smile, and that she was nice. And that she got a radio call about a motorist who had just blown through a mandatory chain-up checkpoint that sent her driving back down the mountain.

Ranger Anderson left Paradise to do what she did best. Keep visitors safe.

Just after 10 a.m. on that beautiful, crisp morning, the still of the mountain was broken by the sound of gunfire. Ranger Anderson was shot and killed by the man who had raced through the traffic checkpoint. For 90 minutes, he fired on rangers and other law-enforcement personnel who had rushed to the scene.

He escaped into the backcountry, and while he was tracked, park visitors, volunteers and employees were locked down to keep them safe. Twenty-four hours later, he was found dead, face down in an icy river.

The actions of Anderson and the other rangers who stopped the gunman were the result of deliberate, tactical decisions designed to protect the people at Paradise. Jeremy Best believes she saved his life — a feeling that is shared by many others who were at Paradise on New Year's Day.

Anderson is a hero, not because she died, but because of why she died. To keep visitors safe.

With the help of rangers from across the country, local partners and volunteers, we have reopened the park and given the mountain back to the people.

That's what Margaret would have wanted. That the place she loved was again welcoming visitors to their national park, and her colleagues were doing what they do best: keeping visitors safe.

Anderson was an exceptional national park ranger. She was also a friend, colleague, neighbor, and a mother, daughter and wife. Her loss reverberates across the lives of all of those she loved and millions of people across the country that have come to know her in these last few days.

Her career as a law-enforcement ranger began in 2002 at Bryce Canyon National Park, where she met her future husband, Eric. In 2004, Margaret moved to Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park in Maryland; Eric went to Antietam National Battlefield.

The following year they were married. They welcomed their first child, Annalise Rose, in February 2008 and that December found jobs in the same park, Mount Rainier, and moved to Washington state where their second daughter, Kathryn Paige, was born, just a year and a half ago.

I wish that it had not taken a tragedy for those she so gladly served — the American people — to learn about Margaret. Every day, the dedicated men and women of the National Park Service open up 397 national parks that serve 280 million visitors annually. We also help hundreds of communities every year create close-to-home recreational opportunities and preserve local history.

There are thousands of Margaret Andersons in our ranks, incredible professionals who are passionate about the work they do in service to our nation and its people. I hope you get to know them the next time you visit one of your national parks.

[yellowtail3]

Perhaps Margaret Anderson's death had a lot to do with the ranger's actions.

Tim

That is possible... in the same way that there may be a police shot to death because of the beating death/murder of Kelly Thomas, or the shooting death of Jose Guerena.