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

[ironglow]

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.

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
 
  We are of course, speaking of national Park Rangers..  What National park were kelly and Jose killed in and what were the circumstances ?
  Any other circumstance other than a Nat Park setting would be "apples to oranges"..

[yellowtail3]

  We are of course, speaking of national Park Rangers..  What National park were kelly and Jose killed in and what were the circumstances ?

Thomas Kelly was beaten to death by officers of the Fullerton PD, a couple of which have been charged in his murder.

Jose Guerena was shot 71 times in his own home by LEOs conducting of of these paramilitary commando raids so popular these days. The wouldn't let him get medical treatment for an hour, but he was dead so I suppose it didn't happen.

Neither of those killings took place in a park, only one involved taser usage, both are examples of catastrophic overreach by 'peace officers' that resulted in the killing of our fellow citizens. I'm the one who started the thread, Ironglow, I know what it's about.

[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??

  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.

I disagree, "we" don't keep getting distracted.  You keep going off on a tangent discussing the Tasing , without taking into consideration, the entire incident.  No investigation is conducted the way you suggest, except by people who only want their preconceived notion to prevail.

[ironglow]

Yellow;
   You said it yourself..
    " Thomas Kelly was beaten to death by officers of the Fullerton PD, a couple of which have been charged in his murder."
.................................................................
  If he had beaten an officer to death, the result would be the same.. charged with murder murder..  So where is the big complaint ?
 
  So, with the sudden demise of Jose;  did he get shot while quietly surrendering ?  Are the police charged..  Since the case is still unsettled, with charges and countercharges..guess we will have to wait for clarification..
  http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/20/sheriffs-slain-jose-guerena-li
 
  Still no connection to National Parks..     Again, oranges to apples..

[-Shaggy-]

According to Quick's article.....Ranger Margret Anderson was killed rushing to the scene of an escaped desperado shooting at people....not only would she have been justified 'deploying' her taser, but also justified 'deploying' her firearm.
.
 
...TM7

Better read the article again, not even close to what it says. She was sent to stop a pickup that didn't stop at a checkpoint, and there was no "desperado shooting at people" until he shot her.
 
 Ranger Girl, as you like to call her, was aware that another park ranger was killed during a routine traffic stop, and she did overreact to another routine violation. Now is not the best time to be pissing off female park rangers.

[Casull]

Better read the article again, not even close to what it says. She was sent to stop a pickup that didn't stop at a checkpoint, and there was no "desperado shooting at people" until he shot her.

 
 
100% accurate.  What was tm's point?

[-Shaggy-]

According to Quick's article.....Ranger Margret Anderson was killed rushing to the scene of an escaped desperado shooting at people....not only would she have been justified 'deploying' her taser, but also justified 'deploying' her firearm.
.
 
...TM7

Better read the article again, not even close to what it says. She was sent to stop a pickup that didn't stop at a checkpoint, and there was no "desperado shooting at people" until he shot her.
 
 Ranger Girl, as you like to call her, was aware that another park ranger was killed during a routine traffic stop, and she did overreact to another routine violation. Now is not the best time to be pissing off female park rangers.

.
.  So what did you get out of the article, ...?
.
.
..TM7

 
I got out of the article what it actually said.

[quickdtoo]

Mt Rainier Ranger Margaret Anderson used her vehicle as a road block about a mile below the Paradise Visitor's Center and waited for man that ran the tire chain checkpoint, she was killed at the confrontation, only one other ranger was involved in the inital confrontation, the gunman then fled into the forest and from cover prevented the other ranger and arriving law enforcement from attending Anderson.

My point is the previous shooting is fresh in the lone California Ranger's mind, after the dog walker gave a false name and attempted to leave the area several times giving her reason to believe there might be more than just a misdemeanor offense involved,  she took action that prevented him from leaving and she maintained control without endangering herself or anyone else other than the offender himself which he brought on himself by not being compliant in the first place, for all the ranger knew, he could have been a felon, terrorist or whatever, giving a false name(confirmed by radio apparently) would be a big red flag to me if I were in her position.

Tim

Park ranger killed by gunman in national park75 Comments

Benjamin Colton Barnes, a person of interest in the Jan. 1, 2012, fatal shooting of a park ranger at Mount Rainier National Park in Washington state, is shown in this undated photo provided by the Pierce County Sheriff's Department. (AP Photo/Pierce County Sheriff's Department)
(AP)  Updated at 12:53 a.m. ET Jan. 2


MOUNT RAINIER NATIONAL PARK, Wash. - A Mount Rainier National Park ranger was fatally shot following a New Year's Day traffic stop, and the 368-square-mile park in Washington state was closed as dozens of officers searched for the armed gunman over snowy and rugged terrain.



 Park Ranger Margaret Anderson
(Credit: AP Photo/Mount Rainier National Park) Pierce County Sheriff's spokesman Ed Troyer said late Sunday afternoon Benjamin Colton Barnes, a 24-year-old believed to have survivalist skills, was a "strong person of interest" in the slaying of Margaret Anderson. A parks spokesman said Barnes was an Iraq war veteran. Authorities recovered his vehicle, which had weapons and body armor inside, Troyer said.


Barnes was also a suspect in the early Sunday morning shooting of four people at a house party south of Seattle, police said.


Authorities believed the gunman was still in the woods, with weapons. They asked people to stay away from the park, and for those already inside to leave.


"We do have a very hot and dangerous situation," Troyer said.


Troyer said authorities were following tracks in the snow they believe are from the gunman, and crews planned to bring an airplane through the area with heat-seeking capabilities.


"We believe we have a good track on him, but he's way ahead of us," Troyer said.


Kevin Bacher, a spokesman for the park, said about 125 people would spend Sunday night in the visitor center basement along with five law enforcement officers protecting the facility. He said crews had considered removing them in armored vehicles, but decided not to take any risk. There was enough food at the center, but Bacher said diapers were running in short supply.


The park would remain closed Monday, officials announced late Sunday.


Jason Simpson, 29, of Kent, said his parents were still trapped at the visitor's center after traveling to the mountain for a day hike. His parents were able to make a call explaining their situation, and Simpson drove to the park entrance to wait.


"It's very distressing," Simpson said.


Sgt. Cindi West, King County Sheriff's spokesperson, said late Sunday that Barnes was connected to an early-morning shooting at a New Year's house party in Skyway, Wash., south of Seattle that left four people injured, two critically. That incident happened about 3 a.m., and stemmed from an argument over a gun.


West said three people fled the scene. Two were located, and West said authorities were trying to find Barnes and had been in contact with his family, trying to have them convince him to "come to the police and tell his side of the story" in the Skyway shooting.

At Mount Rainier around 10:20 a.m. Sunday, Bacher said the gunman had sped past a checkpoint. One ranger began following him while Anderson eventually blocked the road to stop the driver.

Before fleeing, the gunman fired shots at both Anderson and the ranger that trailed him, but only Anderson was hit, Bacher said.

It was possible that searchers may wait until morning to continue the effort.

"We do not know what resources the shooter has. We're not sure what we're up against," Bacher said. "We know that he has a weapon, but we don't know how many."

About 150 officers, including officials from the Washington State Patrol, U.S. Forest Service and FBI, were on the mountain.

Authorities said earlier that Anderson's body had been removed from the park, but Troyer said police have been unable to get to her because of concern over potentially being in the line of fire.

An FBI SWAT team was working to remove her body from the mountain Sunday night.

Park superintendent Randy King said Anderson is a mother of two young daughters who has served as a park ranger for about four years. King said Anderson's husband also was working as a ranger elsewhere in the park at the time of the shooting.

"It's just a huge tragedy — for the family, the park and the park service," he said.

Adam Norton, a neighbor of Anderson's in the small town of Eatonville, Wash., said the ranger's family moved in about a year ago. He said they were not around much, but when they were Norton would see Anderson outside with her girls.

"They just seemed like the perfect family," he said.

The town of about 3,000 residents, which is a logging community overlooking Mount Rainier, is very close knit, he said.

"It's really sad right now," Norton said. "We take care of each other."

It has been legal for people to take loaded firearms into Mount Rainier since 2010, when a controversial federal law went into effect that made possession of firearms in national parks subject to state gun laws.

The shooting occurred on an unseasonably sunny and mild day. The park, which offers miles of wooded trails and spectacular vistas from which to see 14,410-foot Mount Rainier, draws between 1.5 million and 2 million visitors each year.

The Longmire station served as headquarters when the national park was established in 1899. Park headquarters have moved but the site still contains a museum, a hotel, restaurant and gift shop, which are open year-round.

[quickdtoo]

http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2012/01/updated-suspect-mount-rainier-national-park-shooting-found-dead9240

Updated: Suspect In Mount Rainier National Park Shooting Found Dead
 

Submitted by Kurt Repanshek on January 2, 2012 - 1:26am

National Park Rangers protect the public as well as the resource, and at times that requires the ultimate sacrifice. This moving memorial to Great Smoky Mountains National Park Ranger Joseph D. Kolodski sits beside Blue Ridge Parkway headquarters in Asheville, NC. Stationed in Great Smoky, he died in 1998 "protecting visitors from harm" while responding to an incident on the southern end of the Parkway. Randy Johnson photo.

Editor's note: This updates that the suspect confirmed dead in the park and provides additional details, including his name.

An Iraqi war veteran wanted in connection with the slaying of a ranger in Mount Rainier National Park was found dead Monday afternoon in a drainage near one of the park's hallmark waterfalls just south of Paradise.

How Benjamin Colton Barnes died, however, was not immediately known. While ground teams had reached the location of his body, they had not reported whether he had died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound, from hyopthermia, or perhaps from a fall, park spokeswoman Lee Snook said.

Mr. Barnes had been the subject of a manhunt that grew to involve more than 200 law enforcement personnel from state, local and federal jurisdictions after Ranger Margaret Anderson was shot New Year's Day. At times he waded through chest-deep snow to evade the search teams, Ms. Snook said.

“The last time his tracks were found the snow was about chest deep, so it would have been cold, wet and difficult," she said. The tracks indicated that he was "post-holing" and had no snowshoes, the spokeswoman said.

Earlier Monday, park officials said aerial teams had spotted Mr. Barnes' prone body in a steep drainage near Narda Falls, a 176-foot cascade of the Paradise River that plunges over a basalt wall in two pitches, one falling about 159 feet, the other about 17.

Ranger Anderson, a 34-year-old law enforcement ranger, was shot and killed when she tried to intercept Mr. Barnes' car as it fled a routine checkpoint where park visitors were checked to see if they had chains for their tires. At a point on the road above Longmire and about a mile from Paradise the ranger used her cruiser to block the road so she could stop the man shortly after 10 a.m. Sunday.

"The assailant jumped from his car and opened fire with a shotgun, fatally wounding Ranger Anderson. The assailant then fled on foot into the woods," another park spokeswoman, Lee Taylor, said Sunday evening.

When other rangers responded to the scene, they were prevented from reaching Ranger Anderson by the man, who kept them pinned down with gunfire from the woods, according to other park officials.

"It was about 90 minutes before they could reach her," Ms. Snook said Sunday afternoon.

The ranger, who became just the ninth ranger in Park Service history to be murdered in the line of duty, left behind a husband who also was a ranger in the park, and two young children, aged 2 and 4, according to park officials.

The more than 200 law enforcement personnel from the park, the FBI, and surrounding jurisdictions continued their manhunt into Sunday night, aided by a fixed-wing aircraft with forward-looking infrared to scan the ground, she said.

At Paradise, 125 park visitors who had come to Paradise to enjoy the day were moved for their safety into the Jackson Memorial Visitor Center along with 17 park staff.

"The visitor center has a restaurant to provide food, restrooms, and water, and law enforcement officers are on hand to provide protection," said Ms. Taylor.

Later Sunday evening they were escorted by authorities out of the park.

News reports out of Seattle said the man being sought was thought to have been involved in a shooting at a house there earlier Sunday, and that when authorities searched a car abandoned near Ranger Anderson they found it held survival gear and body armor.

In Washington, D.C., Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said Sunday that he was "deeply saddened by the tragic, horrific and cowardly murder today at Mount Rainier National Park."

"The Department of the Interior and the National Park Service will do everything possible to bring the perpetrator of this crime to justice and to ensure the safety of park visitors and other park rangers," the secretary said in a prepared statement. "This tragedy serves as a reminder of the risks undertaken by the men and women of the National Park Service and law enforcement officers across the Department every day, and we thank them for their service. My thoughts and prayers are with Margaret's family in this difficult time."

Park Service Director Jon Jarvis called the ranger's murder "a heartbreaking, senseless tragedy."

"Margaret was just 34 years old. She and her husband Eric, who is also a Park Ranger at Mount Rainier, have two young children," he added. "Margaret was killed while doing her job: protecting the visiting public on one of the park’s busiest days of the year."

Over the years more than 200 Park Service staff have died or been killed on the job. Kris Eggle, a ranger at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, was shot and killed in the line of duty in 2002 while pursuing suspected drug runners who were armed with AK-47s.

[-Shaggy-]

According to Quick's article.....Ranger Margret Anderson was killed rushing to the scene of an escaped desperado shooting at people....not only would she have been justified 'deploying' her taser, but also justified 'deploying' her firearm.
.
 
...TM7

Better read the article again, not even close to what it says. She was sent to stop a pickup that didn't stop at a checkpoint, and there was no "desperado shooting at people" until he shot her.
 
 Ranger Girl, as you like to call her, was aware that another park ranger was killed during a routine traffic stop, and she did overreact to another routine violation. Now is not the best time to be pissing off female park rangers.

.
.  So what did you get out of the article, ...?
.
.
..TM7

 
I got out of the article what it actually said.

.
.I'd say a guy running checkpoints and shooting at officers and other personnel for 90 minutes, qualifies as a desperado and because she got sent to assist she unfortunately ended shot....Minutia, defintions, and reading comprehensions aside...this case has little in common with tazering dog walkers.
TM7

 
Again, that is not what the article said happened.

[kevinsmith5]

Am I the only one who noticed the part about the wildlife area "considering" changing leash rules? That makes it sound like she ass telling him he had to have his dogs on leashes when he didn't. Changes the story.
And if its been legal to let dogs loose there a long time (which it sounds like it has) some locals may be grumpy about proposed changes.
I will say this, she may have known the name was fake simply by which one it was; I.P. Freilly, Chuck U. Farlie, Nun Yo Beeswax, etc.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk

[teamnelson]

http://worldduh.com/2012/02/01/park-ranger-tases-man-walking-dogs-off-leash-a-real-crime-what in the world/
 

A Park Service spokesman said the ranger, whose name is being withheld, used her stun gun on Hesterberg because he was leaving the scene despite orders to stay.

He was neither charged nor arrested by the NPS officer; she attempted to detain him and he did not comply. Of the witnesses present at the scene, not one has mentioned Miranda, or her attempting to place him under arrest. Evidently he asked her if she was going to arrest him, and she did not specify. Her own testimony was that she ordered him to stay. Witnesses don't indicate that he ran; he just turned his back. Speculation is that he was looking for his dogs that most likely were wandering off as they weren't on a leash.
 
She had probable cause to arrest him on the scene for violating the "rule", but did not inform him she was doing so, nor did she read him his Miranda rights, according to the witnesses. Under the law, he was not being legally detained. Had she informed him that he was under arrest, indicated the charges for which he was suspected, and read him Miranda ... then he would have been resisting arrest when he turned his back, and she might've had to use the taser if she or a fellow officer were in danger, or another citizen were in danger, according to NPS rules of engagement.
 
The reason why we have Lawful Arrest and Detention on the books, is that it is very possible for an officer of the law to issue an unlawful order; only a Judge can take away a citizen's rights under the law, not an officer or park ranger. This is why Miranda was enacted, as a check and balance against police overstepping citizen's rights, even with good intention or just in simple ignorance. The fact is they both did wrong - some here seem to think that to find fault with the officer is to ignore the suspects actions. Nothing could be further from the truth. He did wrong by lying to the officer, but she failed to follow legal procedure and wound up putting a suspect in a potentially life threatening situation when she is the one trained to avoid escalation, not him.

[Casull]

TeamNelson, you mentioned "Miranda" at least four times.  You do realize that a LEO can effect an arrest without issuing Miranda warnings, don't you?  Miranda only deals with not being able to use admissions of the accused without prior warning.

[quickdtoo]

He wouldn't be marandized for a misdemeanor citation, I've never been for any citation,  which is what he might have received at the time had he given his actual name instead of trying to weasel out of the citation with a phony name which is likely what he thought might happen. If he had given his real name in the first place, she probably would've given him a warning and sent him on his way with a little education.

If he had his back to her at the time she zapped him, he may have made a suspicious movement that she perceived as a threat, he could have been armed for all she knew, but there are too few details known at this time to know for sure.

Tim

[OldSchoolRanger]

...He was neither charged nor arrested by the NPS officer; she attempted to detain him and he did not comply. Of the witnesses present at the scene, not one has mentioned Miranda, or her attempting to place him under arrest. Evidently he asked her if she was going to arrest him, and she did not specify. Her own testimony was that she ordered him to stay. Witnesses don't indicate that he ran; he just turned his back. Speculation is that he was looking for his dogs that most likely were wandering off as they weren't on a leash....

TN - Who said, "He was neither charged nor arrested by the NPS officer; she attempted to detain him and he did not comply."? Even you stated that she attempted to detain him & he did not comply.  There; he was under arrest and he resisted.  I thought you were involved in law enforcement, guess I was wrong.
"not one has mentioned Miranda" - Are you inferring that a person has to be "Mirandized" prior to an arrest taking place or before he is considered under arrest?
"Speculation" is just a big word for guessing", and has no bearing in court.

...She [the Ranger] had probable cause to arrest him on the scene for violating the "rule", but did not inform him she was doing so, nor did she read him his Miranda rights, according to the witnesses. Under the law, he was not being legally detained. Had she informed him that he was under arrest, indicated the charges for which he was suspected, and read him Miranda ... then he would have been resisting arrest when he turned his back, and she might've had to use the taser if she or a fellow officer were in danger, or another citizen were in danger, according to NPS rules of engagement....

   Even you said: "She [the Ranger] had probable cause to arrest him", so what is the problem, with her refusing to allow him to depart the scene?  And if necessary through the use of force? 
   In your Post #43, you stated "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."  I guess that if you needed all this time to figure out if there was probable cause, you really shouldn't have been second guessing the Ranger who had to make the decision in a split second.
   "[The Ranger] did not inform him she was doing [arresting him] so, nor did she read him his Miranda rights," - Is that what they taught you and your people? That a person is not under arrest until you voice the action, and read him his Miranda rights?  This statement is blatantly false, you are welcome to check case law, if you doubt me.  In your duties in Iraq & Afghanistan, is it required to read a suspect his Miranda rights?  Just asking. 
   Then you go on to say: "then he would have been resisting arrest" -  If you really believe that, I respectfully suggest you get better training in law enforcement.

The reason why we have Lawful Arrest and Detention on the books, is that it is very possible for an officer of the law to issue an unlawful order; only a Judge can take away a citizen's rights under the law, not an officer or park ranger. This is why Miranda was enacted, as a check and balance against police overstepping citizen's rights, even with good intention or just in simple ignorance. The fact is they both did wrong - some here seem to think that to find fault with the officer is to ignore the suspects actions. Nothing could be further from the truth. He did wrong by lying to the officer, but she failed to follow legal procedure and wound up putting a suspect in a potentially life threaten ing situation when she is the one trained to avoid escalation, not him.

This has yet to be proven.  Your statement that the "suspect" is not trained to avoid escalation is ludicrous to the extreme.  I won't even deign to answer that.  You also don't know what was on the "suspects" mind, nor what the Ranger perceived to be the situation at the time of the incident.  Monday morning quarter-backing doesn't work when you are the one involved in the situation.  Again, I state that we do not know all the facts, and I would refrain from passing judgement.
 

[OldSchoolRanger]

According to Quick's article.....Ranger Margret Anderson was killed rushing to the scene of an escaped desperado shooting at people....not only would she have been justified 'deploying' her taser, but also justified 'deploying' her firearm.
.
 
...TM7

Better read the article again, not even close to what it says. She was sent to stop a pickup that didn't stop at a checkpoint, and there was no "desperado shooting at people" until he shot her.
 
 Ranger Girl, as you like to call her, was aware that another park ranger was killed during a routine traffic stop, and she did overreact to another routine violation. Now is not the best time to be pissing off female park rangers.

.
.  So what did you get out of the article, ...?
.
.
..TM7

 
I got out of the article what it actually said.

.
Right...and here's what it said::::
.
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.
.

.I'd say a guy running checkpoints and shooting at officers and other personnel for 90 minutes, qualifies as a desperado and because she got sent to assist she unfortunately ended shot....Minutia, defintions, and reading comprehensions aside...this case has little in common with tazering dog walkers.
TM7

TM - Regarding the section in question;

"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."

If you'll allow me to provide a little insight, it reads:

"Just after 10 a.m. on that beautiful, crisp morning, the still of the mountain was broken by the sound of gunfire"  - There is no point of contention on this sentence.

"Ranger Anderson was shot and killed by the man who had raced through the traffic checkpoint." - This means literally that Ranger Anderson was killed by a man who had raced through a checkpoint.

"For 90 minutes, he fired on rangers and other law-enforcement personnel who had rushed to the scene." - This means that for a period of 90 minutes, the shooter, fired on all law enforcement personnel, including Rangers, who responded to the scene of the shooting/killing of Ranger Anderson.

Not as you interpreted the sentence to mean: "According to Quick's article.....Ranger Margret Anderson was killed rushing to the scene of an escaped desperado shooting at people....not only would she have been justified 'deploying' her taser, but also justified 'deploying' her firearm."

-Shaggy- ; has the understanding of the meaning clear when he stated: "Better read the article again, not even close to what it says. She was sent to stop a pickup that didn't stop at a checkpoint, and there was no "desperado shooting at people" until he shot her."

[jlwilliams]

  It will be interesting to see what the details really are as they become available.
 
  If he asked her if he was being detained, and she didn't respond, then was he free to go?  Did she actually tell him repeatedly not to move?  That seems to be in dispute.  At first I though that he was just walking away while she was trying to detain him, but it seems like he might have been walking away while she was refusing to acknowledge him.  What was really happening?  I'm also more than a little confused at how the alleged 'fake name' was 'verified' over the radio.  How on earth could the voice on the other end of the radio know that the name he gave was false unless he said he was "Jo Mama"  "F. U. Bee-otch"?  This definitely sounds like a case of less than half the truth hitting the papers.
 
  On the fake name and no ID issue; this brings up a question that maybe OSR or another police (or maybe an attorney) could clear up.  You need to show a license when you are doing an activity that requires a license (driving, carrying a gun in most places, fishing, etc).  Walking the dogs doesn't require a license so he didn't really have to have his ID.  What would happen if the Ranger asked his name and he declined to give it?  If he's not under arrest, why should he identify himself?  In fact, since one reason police ask for your name is to see if you have any warrants outstanding, then giving your name may be self-incriminating.  Since you can not be compelled to bear witness against yourself, doesn't he have a fifth ammendment right to decline to incriminate himself?  In short, why should he have even told her anything?  When she told him that the rules had changed, and by the way what's your name; shouldn't he have said "Thanks for informing me of the rules change.  I respectfully decline to identify myself.  Am I free to go?"
 
  Whatever he should have said or done, it seems aparent that he screwed up at some point.  She may well have screwed up herself and I'm holding out to make a solid conclusion untill more info comes out.  Still, I'd like to hear a LE perspective on my hypothetical question.

[-Shaggy-]

 
.
...Anderson was at 5400ft located at Paradise
...she got a radio call
...that a motorists had blown thru a checkpoint
...and that sent her driving back down the mountain...She left Paradise
...she was shot by a fugitive desparado that ran a checkpoint, and there was a scene..in the vicinity of the checkpoint
....from another Quick article we see she was shot by the checkpoint runner as she tried to blockade his escape
.....so she was involved with a checkpoint
....after arriving at this location she was shot attempting to blockade fugitive's escape
...,there was a 90 minute gun battle, but hard to tell if it was on going when she arrived or aftr she was shot...
I reckon she was rushing to the scene to assist capture of the desperado, was involved with a checkpoint (blockading fugitive's escape) and unfortunately got shot.....its a shame, too... The desparado was a young war vet who went berzerk in Seattle the night before and killed some people....Most likely a, APB and armed/dangerous on him, too.  She was probably a really good Ranger, too...? 
.
Now whether this incident had any bearing on the dog walker case....I simply can't tell....but if it did I don't think it would have any legal basis or weight....just indicate emotional state and perhaps why Ranger Girl got over excited...not to her benefit actually.
 
.
.
 
..TM7
.

Well, you are getting closer, but you still don't have the story right, and you have introduced a new error.
Nobody was killed in Seattle.

[yellowtail3]

Walking the dogs doesn't require a license so he didn't really have to have his ID.  What would happen if the Ranger asked his name and he declined to give it?  If he's not under arrest, why should he identify himself?   

I'll go out on a very thick & sturdy branch and speculate that she would have been miffed at the lack of cooperation, and maybe taken personal offense.

In short, why should he have even told her anything?  When she told him that the rules had changed, and by the way what's your name; shouldn't he have said "Thanks for informing me of the rules change.  I respectfully decline to identify myself.  Am I free to go?"

That would have been the thing to say, and about what I'd have said, esp if I sniffed a little attitude on the part of Ranger Grrrrrrl. But most folks think that they have to do whatever LEO tells them, including letting them look over your papers, search your care or person, and tell them where you're going. They like for people to think that, and are sometimes dangerously irritated when subjects don't kowtow.

[quickdtoo]

The GGNRA Park Ranger's name is Sarah Cavallaro..

Tim

http://www.hmbreview.com/news/dog-groups-protest-taser-incident/article_99dde22e-4f72-11e1-aad9-0019bb2963f4.html

Dog groups protest Taser incident

Fans of off-leash dog-walking banded together on Friday to protest a Jan. 29 altercation between a dog walker and a National Park ranger.   

Posted: Saturday, February 4, 2012 12:52 pm | Updated: 1:02 pm, Sat Feb 4, 2012.
 
By Clay Lambert [ clay@hmbreview.com ]

Supporters of off-leash dog-walking went online and on the phone Friday in an effort to send a clear message to policy makers at the Golden Gate Recreation Area and beyond.

The protest was posted on signs at entrances to the Rancho Corral de Tierra open space that the GGNRA recently incorporated into the wider Bay Area national park. It was sponsored by several mostly San Francisco-based dog-friendly organizations and urged dog owners to call GGNRA Superintendent Frank Dean, U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

It is hard to quantify the response, but an aide to Speier said in an email Saturday that the congresswoman had gotten many calls and some callers to the GGNRA on Friday report hearing an automated message routing calls about off-leash dog walking to a dedicated mailbox.

The furor started on Jan. 29, when a Coastside resident reported being tased by a National Park ranger during a confrontation over his off-leash dog. Gary Hesterberg maintains that the ranger never identified herself and that he was merely being asked to stay when he decided to walk away. That is when ranger Sarah Cavallaro stunned him with her Taser.

Since then, many dog owners have expressed outrage over what they perceive as excessive force used in the incident. Others have risen to the defense of Cavallaro, saying she acted appropriately given circumstances that included the allegation that Hesterberg gave the ranger false name.

Friday's protest brought to bear the resources of the wider Bay Area dog-friendly community, a loose-knit group that has been at odds with the GGNRA for some time.

"In the 20 years I've lived here, I've never heard anything like that in relation to dog walking in a park," said Bruce Wolfe, president of DogPAC, a political action committee that among other things funds dog-friendly candidates for elective office.

"I think everyone was really shocked because of the level of violence used," said Sally Stephens, president of SF Dog, a nonprofit organization that champions dogs in the city.

Stephens and Wolfe agreed that the GGNRA, as part of the federal National Parks Service, may be fundamentally at odds with its surroundings. Both said the parks service is more suited to governing wild, backcountry spaces than urban and suburban parkland.

Speier weighed in on the matter on Wednesday, the same day that she hosted a telephone town hall with constituents. Speier's letter to Dean suggests the ranger was wrong to use her Taser, asks for an independent investigation of the matter and inquires about what the GGNRA did to inform dog walkers before the federal takeover of the property last year.

[OldSchoolRanger]

OSR...Hesterberg was ultimately arrested for 'suspicion' of an unlawful act (whatever the heck that is..a conspiracy maybe.. ) giving false ID, and walking unleashed dogs...this all occurred after tazing rendered him down for the count...up to that point witness' said he didn't do anything wrong, he leashed his dogs, and didn't know he was arrested; or detained. You seem to imply that 'detained' is the same as arrested__is that right? If I didn't know I was detained, or arrested, and with no spoken words otherwise, I would casually leave and walk away, too....most people would,
..TM7

TM - As you say, Hesterberg was ultimately arrested.  I know what the charge would have been where I live.  I don't claim to know California law, that you would have to take up with someone who does.  What I do know was that if a law enforcement officer detains you for questioning, or to verify your ID, which was clearly the case here, you do not have the legal right to just decide on your part that you can casually leave and walk away.  I really doubt that most, innocent people would.

....especially given the pretense for the original contact__i.e. dogs running free in a place they always had run free.  This Ranger did not establish 'contract', or place an order on the Citizen avoiding such, but in turn actually assaulted him. Citizens are not mind readers.And wasn't there something in this discussion about Hesterberg saying he had a heart condition or such and not to taze him??  This would infer that the threat of tazer use was made, or that the tazer was brandished.  The fact, that Hesterberg was familiar with the Park and had walked his dogs there frequently was also made, and that the Ranger was sent there to inform citizens of new rules,,,,,I guess this is one way of informing Citizens of the New Rules alright...
TM7

   Just because dogs use to run free in a place, they had always run free, doesn't mean that rules can't be changed.  A quick example of this happening would be, an street use to be available for free parking, now signs prohibit parking on the same street.  The outcome of you ignoring the new signs[rules] would be that you receive a parking ticket.
   The Ranger in actuality did in your words "establish contract" with Hesterberg, when she informed him of his violation of the new rules [law] in place, and he was asked to provide proper and legitimate ID.  Hesterberg violated the detention/possible arrest when he tried to "casually" flee [escape] from the Ranger in order to avoid a citation/summons which is usually issued in lieu of arrest.  No alleged assault occurred on Hesterberg, the situation was initiated by his actions.  Hesterberg's statement about his alleged heart condition is the equivalent of him saying: "Don't taze me bro'".  All he had to do to prevent it was to comply, with the Ranger's actions.  If he did so, there would be no need for this discussion.

[OldSchoolRanger]

  It will be interesting to see what the details really are as they become available.
 
  If he asked her if he was being detained, and she didn't respond, then was he free to go?  Did she actually tell him repeatedly not to move?  That seems to be in dispute.  At first I though that he was just walking away while she was trying to detain him, but it seems like he might have been walking away while she was refusing to acknowledge him.  What was really happening?  I'm also more than a little confused at how the alleged 'fake name' was 'verified' over the radio.  How on earth could the voice on the other end of the radio know that the name he gave was false unless he said he was "Jo Mama"  "F. U. Bee-otch"?  This definitely sounds like a case of less than half the truth hitting the papers.
 
  On the fake name and no ID issue; this brings up a question that maybe OSR or another police (or maybe an attorney) could clear up.  You need to show a license when you are doing an activity that requires a license (driving, carrying a gun in most places, fishing, etc).  Walking the dogs doesn't require a license so he didn't really have to have his ID.  What would happen if the Ranger asked his name and he declined to give it?  If he's not under arrest, why should he identify himself?  In fact, since one reason police ask for your name is to see if you have any warrants outstanding, then giving your name may be self-incriminating.  Since you can not be compelled to bear witness against yourself, doesn't he have a fifth ammendment right to decline to incriminate himself?  In short, why should he have even told her anything?  When she told him that the rules had changed, and by the way what's your name; shouldn't he have said "Thanks for informing me of the rules change.  I respectfully decline to identify myself.  Am I free to go?"
 
  Whatever he should have said or done, it seems aparent that he screwed up at some point.  She may well have screwed up herself and I'm holding out to make a solid conclusion untill more info comes out.  Still, I'd like to hear a LE perspective on my hypothetical question.

JL - I too am withholding  judgement until all the information comes out.  Regarding your question about how the fake name was verified, let me just give you an example, using a conversation, I made up, please note, I don't know all CA/Fed. laws, it's just a generalization, based on what I believe may have occurred:
 Ranger (in uniform) - (notices Hesterberg walking his dog off leash) Sir, your in violation of the new park rules regarding walking dogs off leash.
 Hesterberg - I've been walking my dogs off leash here since before you were born, so why don't you do some real police work, and go catch some bank robbers?
 Ranger - Sir, may I see some ID please?
 H'berg - Why? I didn't break no laws, so I don't have to show you anything.
 [meanwhile, fellow dog watchers are gathering, and some are egging H'berg on saying, don't let her take away our rights]
 Ranger - I'm requesting to see some ID since your in violation of the new rule.
 H'berg - Your going to give me a ticket/citation?
 Ranger - I may sir, I haven't decided yet [thinking that she was just going to check his ID, make note of his name in case of a future violation, then give him a warning, and allow him to leave].
 H'berg - You know you really a piece of work[actually *@#$] don't you?  I don't have ID on me (don't know if this claim is true).
 Ranger - That's okay sir, we can verify your ID, if you just give me your name DOB, and residence address.  Do you drive or have a valid CA ID on file?
 H'berg - It's Jason Stratman. I live at 222 Hesterberg Place, SF,CA. My DOB is XX/XX/XX, and yes I drive, what? don't I look like I know how to drive?
 Ranger - Is this correct ? (Reading back info to H'berg.)
 H'berg - Yeah!
 Ranger - (on radio to her command, gives info to command, who informs her that, there is no Hesterberg Place in the city of SF, no license on file for individual with that name or DOB.
 
 That is how it was figured out, that the name was bogus.
 
 Regarding your other question about not having ID on him.  You are correct that no law requires you to have ID on you if you aren't involved in an activity that requires it, but if you commit a violation of the law, and you need to be ID'd, you better have it on you, or you need to be able to prove your ID.  See Post #51, and click on the link to a prior discussion for reasons.
 
 Regarding your last question about "What would happen if the Ranger asked his name and he declined to give it?".  The answer is it depends.  It depends on the officer, his instincts, and how far he wants to take it.  If he wants to take it further, he takes you into custody, and brings you to the station for further investigation.  I have released people at this point in the past, and I have taken it further, it also depends on the attitude of the person being stopped, and most importantly  my instincts. 
 Just my 2 cents, hope this helps you understand.

[Stillkickin]

OSR,
You and I read from the same page and I'll leave it go at that.  Your efforts to educate here are admirable but most clearly futile in this environment and issue.  I've loosely followed the discussion and noticed an element inherent to EVERY post advocating the metaphorical crucifixion of the ranger.  Every person who has done so has justified his resentment of the ranger by his analysis of the confrontation using words like, "safe to infer," "apparently," "seemed to think," "assumedly," etc.  All inferences.  People who are willing to inflict hateful punishment on another based on what they THINK happened, in a void of available facts, and in concession to their emotional prejudice cannot be persuaded otherwise, let alone reasoned with.  Your effort has been valiant but in vain.  This is not a road unknown to my life's travels and I'm here to tell you, those people railing for page after page here cannot and will not accept a change of mind.  There is no level of facts, logic, or common sense that will penetrate their emotional commitment.  The fact that this issue has endured here for this long without any one person's mind being changed is testiment to the futility of continuing onward.  Good luck my friend.  I'm out of here.

[cheapsandwich]

It is interesting how you represent the ranger as being respectful and the dog walker as being disrespectful.................by self addmission  of not knowing all the facts and "holding out judgement ". not saying it means anything other than a clear biase on your part.

[Cuts Crooked]

http://news.yahoo.com/stun-gun-used-woman-blocked-nc-drive-thru-180222200.html;_ylt=AqeJSHyCHEZ3rZjGRQnHJzHNt.d_;_ylu=X3oDMTRzcG9raGhlBGNjb2RlA2N0LmMEbWl0A0FydGljbGUgTW9zdCBQb3B1bGFyBHBrZwM5YTE3ZmQxNS1hODY4LTMwYTItYWE2NS1kY2RjZDQ1NzU2OGQEcG9zAzUEc2VjA01lZGlhQkxpc3RNaXhlZE1vc3RQb3B1bGFyQ0EEdmVyAzc5Zjc5ODkwLTRmYjUtMTFlMS1iZmZmLTQ0NzZjMzVmMjlhZQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTNoaXFlY2U1BGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDMzZkZDc3YjUtZjFhOC0zMGQzLThiMWQtMmIzOTIyM2RhOTliBHBzdGNhdANwb2xpdGljc3xkZXN0aW5hdGlvbjIwMTIEcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdlBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3
 
 

[yellowtail3]

OSR,You and I read from the same page and I'll leave it go at that.

okay, leave it at that... or don't? Is there a secret handshake, here? Does this mean that you, too, are LEO/former LEO, weary of explaining The Job to civilians?

  Your efforts to educate here are admirable but most clearly futile in this environment and issue.

Ah.

I've loosely followed the discussion and noticed an element inherent to EVERY post advocating the metaphorical crucifixion of the ranger.

Could you give an example of this common element which advocates 'metaphorical crucifixion'? What is a 'metaphorical crucifixion' - a critique, maybe? I've posted here a couple times, and I started the thread... have I called for 'crucifixion', metaphorical or otherwise? (I think I did call for a hard smack)

Every person who has done so has justified his resentment of the ranger by his analysis of the confrontation using words like, "safe to infer," "apparently," "seemed to think," "assumedly," etc.  All inferences.  People who are willing to inflict hateful punishment...

We're back to 'metaphorical crucifixion', I guess? What is the 'hateful punishment' you've seen recommended by these certain types you're writing about recommend? 
Good luck my friend.  I'm out of here.
I'd say stick around, if you can offer something a little more substantial. If not...

[BUGEYE]

looks like a witch hunt to me.   did the ranger girl look like a witch?  must have.

[Cuts Crooked]

Buncha sexists! Got nothing to say when it's the other around, as shown in the link I posted above! When male cops taze unarmed female y'all jist quietly accept it! 


(or perhaps you think that blocking a line at Mac Dees is justification fer a righteous tazing! )


 


HOPE MILLS, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina deputies say they used a stun gun on a woman who blocked a McDonalds drive-thru for 20 minutes after employees refused to serve her because she broke in line.
Authorities say 37-year-old Evangeline Lucca bypassed the order screen and the line at the restaurant in Hope Mills, about 60 miles south of Raleigh, and pulled directly up to the pick-up window Friday afternoon.
Cumberland County deputies say employees refused to take her order and told her to go to the back of the line. She refused to move, and police were called.
Authorities say Lucca was shocked after she blocked the line for 20 minutes. Her 3-year-old daughter was taken into protective custody.
Lucca was charged with second-degree trespass. A phone listing for her couldn't be found.

[SHOOTALL]

It seems some forget how our enforcement/court system works. The officer in the field arrest when he sees or thinks he sees a violation of the law. To argure or fight with him is both stupid ( they have guns and tasers) and in many cases illegal. If you want to argure or complain or sue the officer then go to court that's the place to do so.
In the OP the guy was breaking the law it seems and should have been man enough to take his punishment. I would suspect that in most places if you can't produce ID when ask you will be detained , At one time in Va. if you didn't have a certian amount of cash or other means to prove you were not a bum you could be detained ( think those laws are gone now).

[jlwilliams]

Buncha sexists! Got nothing to say when it's the other around, as shown in the link I posted above! When male cops taze unarmed female y'all jist quietly accept it! 


(or perhaps you think that blocking a line at Mac Dees is justification fer a righteous tazing! )


 


HOPE MILLS, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina deputies say they used a stun gun on a woman who blocked a McDonalds drive-thru for 20 minutes after employees refused to serve her because she broke in line.
Authorities say 37-year-old Evangeline Lucca bypassed the order screen and the line at the restaurant in Hope Mills, about 60 miles south of Raleigh, and pulled directly up to the pick-up window Friday afternoon.
Cumberland County deputies say employees refused to take her order and told her to go to the back of the line. She refused to move, and police were called.
Authorities say Lucca was shocked after she blocked the line for 20 minutes. Her 3-year-old daughter was taken into protective custody.
Lucca was charged with second-degree trespass. A phone listing for her couldn't be found.

  Speaking only for myself, I didn't comment because I didn't follow the link.
  Many of us are using computers (or other devices) that we may be hesitant to follow links with.  May be a vid with more than our machines will run.  May be an 'infected' link.  In general, when someone puts an article into their post to further the discussion then reading that article in the thread is good, but clicking links is fraught with pitfalls.
 Point being, for you to conclude that the detractors are sexist because they didn't comment on your link isn't really accurate or intelectually honest.  Are we really sexist for not commenting on the article?  Did we really decline to react in the way you think we should because we read you article and disagree with your conclusion?  Or, did we not comment because you didn't post anything to comment on untill you put that second post up with the details we could see? 
  I think that the woman beligerantly refusing to move out of a drive through after cutting is a whole different story.  She may have been guilty of tresspassing.  Removing her seems reasonable.  I don't see much to compare that situation with the dog walker though.
  Myself, I have to admit a certain amount of sexism.  When I first read about the Ranger and the dog walker my first thoughts ran to examples I've personally seen of women in positions of authority (including but NOT limited to police) who way over reacted when men failed to bow low enough before them.  Recognising that as being my own personal bias based on what I've seen, I have refrained from putting that out there till now.  I do post it now because you have raised the specter of gender bias so I think maybe it's time to throw it on the table.
 
  OSR, thanks for the explanation.  That does answer much of my question.  I still don't know if the radio identity verification passews the sniff test.  May be as you speculate, but the absence of a record of such a name doesn't equate to the name being false.  No record of that name means no record, not no peoson.  Time will tell and your guess is as good as any I've heard yet.
   I have asked other police I know socially the same general hypothetical about identifying one's self as being possably self incriminating.  I've also talked to lawyers about it.  It's a tough question and I get widely varrying responses.  Some serious, some funny, some scarry.  A lawyer or two has said that that would be a case they'd love to see go to the Supreme court.  It's the sort of thing that a law professor could base a semester on.  Big fun for them, but no one would want to be the defendant.  It makes for good conversation.
 
  As an after thought.  This guy (and possably the ranger) didn't know how to handle the encounter. As a result, this guy has been traumatized and maybe even physically damaged by severe electric shock.  Being tazered is serious and often leads to problems later.   This ranger may have lost her career.  Maybe because she will be found to have acted wrongly and shouldn't be in that career, maybe because she might realise that 'this job isn't for me'.  Maybe everybody walks away from this OK.   That is all yet to be seen.  What I get from it is that everybody should learn what their rights are and are not.  You never know when you may be in an encounter with LE and where that may go.  Innocent people who don't know what to say or what the officer is thinking can get themselves in a world of hurt by making some stupid move, gesture or utterance.  Read up.  Watch DVDs.  Do whatever it takes to learn what to say and what not to say to the police.  The stakes are high.
 
  Time will tell if the walker or the Ranger or both was most wrongest, but clearly people could have conducted themselves differently.