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

[BUGEYE]

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).

back in 63, I was hitchhiking through Roseburg Oregon, didn't have enough money for a motel, so the cops locked me up.  went before the judge in the morning, he sentenced me to one day in jail and then suspended the sentence.  the cops gave me a ride back out where they got me and said have a nice day.  I think they were bored and I gave them something to do.
they did a lot of joking about desperados etc.

[BUGEYE]

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).

back in 63, I was hitchhiking through Roseburg Oregon, didn't have enough money for a motel, so the cops locked me up.  went before the judge in the morning, he sentenced me to one day in jail and then suspended the sentence.  the cops gave me a ride back out where they got me and said have a nice day.  I think they were bored and I gave them something to do.
they did a lot of joking about desperados etc.

.
Isn't that where Rambo got hasseled, too..?.. You may be prohibited from purchasing a firearm in Oregon....really.....depends what is hidden in their Public Law
.
....TM7

I went on to purchase a win. model 94, 30-30 and a model 70 westerner in .264 mag.
I doubt if my name is in their records.  they made a big joke about it.

[jlwilliams]

  TM7, it's true enough that retired LE will give the benefit of the doubt to LE.  It's also true that the system is geared toward giving the system the benefit of the doubt.  Police do in fact have extrordinary power over individuals at the time and place of an encounter. On the other hand, coming down consistently on the other side where you point to every situation as an example of how wrong the police are you risk credibility when those cases some times turn out to be the other way around.  None of which really tells us what really happened in the case in question.  Pointing the finger of bias (BTW, I'm sorry for singling you out for the charge of bias pointing, you aren't alone) doesn't bring the conversation any closer to the truth.
 
  I'm up for talking about the militarization of the police and I agree that the way things arfe and the way they seem to be headed stands criticism.  That may or may not be the situation here.
 
  I have friends and relatives who are cops.  That doesn't maen that every cop is as good a man as my grandfather.  I've encountered bad cops, been beat up by an adrenalin junkie with a badge, known people who were jailed in part due to cops lying under oath.  That doesn't  mean all cops are as bad as those.  None of that means anything in relation to Ranger Girl verses Doggie Dude.  Each situation is it's own.
 
   I'm anxioulsy awaiting the next article to be posted.  We need more information.

[cheapsandwich]

  TM7, it's true enough that retired LE will give the benefit of the doubt to LE.  It's also true that the system is geared toward giving the system the benefit of the doubt.  Police do in fact have extrordinary power over individuals at the time and place of an encounter. On the other hand, coming down consistently on the other side where you point to every situation as an example of how wrong the police are you risk credibility when those cases some times turn out to be the other way around.  None of which really tells us what really happened in the case in question.  Pointing the finger of bias (BTW, I'm sorry for singling you out for the charge of bias pointing, you aren't alone) doesn't bring the conversation any closer to the truth.
 
  I'm up for talking about the militarization of the police and I agree that the way things arfe and the way they seem to be headed stands criticism.  That may or may not be the situation here.
 
  I have friends and relatives who are cops.  That doesn't maen that every cop is as good a man as my grandfather.  I've encountered bad cops, been beat up by an adrenalin junkie with a badge, known people who were jailed in part due to cops lying under oath.  That doesn't  mean all cops are as bad as those.  None of that means anything in relation to Ranger Girl verses Doggie Dude.  Each situation is it's own.
 
   I'm anxioulsy awaiting the next article to be posted.  We need more information.

I could agree with alot of those points and I think alot of the judgement comes from the growing frustration of the "us vs them" saga.
 If more LEO came out against those bad officers instead of protecting or turning a blind eye you would have alot more trust between citizens and LEO. And it wouldn't result in biased conversations. Until then there will always be justified suspicion.
Hell I think most cops start off wanting to help but after their hard work scum goes free I could understand the frustration. Its just easier to paint with a broad brush and put labels on things. We do it all the time.

[OldSchoolRanger]

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.

cheapsandwich - If you read my post, you will note, I said: "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:".  This made up conversation is based upon situations that have happened to me over the years, on more occasions than I would care to admit.  You may be correct that I suffer a bias, but again it is based on life experiences.  If you wish, feel free to concoct your own version of the encounter.  I would be willing to bet, in the end, when all the facts come out, my version will be closer to the truth, than you or I would like.

[OldSchoolRanger]

YT3......
 Actually yes. As we follow the disscussion we have the Official LEO  viewpoint coming out, now no longer Peace Officers, and the sad fact is that ...
....TM7

TM - Sorry, I must have missed that post, where in this discussion was there mention of "we have the Official LEO  viewpoint coming out".  I didn't see a news release by the National Park Service stating their "Official LEO viewpoint".  If you were posting in regards to my statement or Stillkickin 's post, you are sorely mistaken, they were personal points of view.  Why is it that you always seem to misinterpret a post or read more into it that what is written? 

   Suppose I were to read the following comments that you posted:

....  if a Citizen is to get hassled the books, rhetoric, codes, attitude, philosophy, and courts are all setup to do just that__even the Public's preception altered to embrace slavery....all a Franz Kafkaesque web of no escape.... .
...Got no papers?___come with me to the station.
...Don't want to tell me who you are?___stay right there, you may or may not be under detainment or arrest__we'll decide later.
...Walking your dog without a leash?__stay here, who are you, where do you live, you're suspicious
...Giving me grief?__we got Tazers now for guys like you
...Think this is Public Propertty?__guess again
...Think you can casually walk away__think again, we got Tazers for guys like you
...Want to be a smartarse?__we got Tazers for guys like you AND Courts
and so on and so on.....
....TM7

and stated that it was the "Official Anarchist/Socialist viewpoint coming out".  Would it be safe to assume that you were the spokesman for the Anarchist or Socialist Party?
 

[Cuts Crooked]

  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? 

JL, I will NEVER post a vid or similar, sorry if you thought I might, but I often post links to news sights on MSN or Yahoo.

As for the rest. I wuz havin' fun with y'all........that's why the smiley faces were there. Looks like I pulled yer leg and it came right off!

[SHOOTALL]

So here many police have to be tasered to carry one . Wonder if she went thru that training ?

[jlwilliams]

As for the rest. I wuz havin' fun with y'all........that's why the smiley faces were there. Looks like I pulled yer leg and it came right off!

  You got my leg?  Give it back!

[gypsyman]

To many unanswered questions in the article. Maybe he was turning around to get one of his dogs. Maybe he pronounced his name correctly, and the park ranger heard his name wrong. In any case, the one thing that was known for sure, she tased him in the back, for what to me seems like a sensless act. I wonder, just like shootall, if she has ever been tased. Alot of police officers I've talked to in the last few years at the gun shows, go thru getting tased, just so if their called into a courtroom, and a defense attorny asks them, they can answer to the affirmative. gypsyman

[yellowtail3]

a little more info from one who witnessed Ranger Grrrrrrl wielding her authority & taser:


http://www.mercurynews.com/pacifica-news/ci_19914243
Michelle Babcock, Montara resident and a witness to this event, said several park visitors had been walking their dogs off leash when they saw a park ranger giving a citation. They immediately leashed their dogs and told others to do so. When she and her husband saw Hesterberg and the ranger in their stand-off, her husband asked the ranger why Hesterberg couldn't leave, but was told by the ranger to stay out of it. The whole time, the ranger did not say anything about educating them about the on-leash dog policy, Babcock said. When they witnessed the tasing, Babcock said she was incredulous and in disbelief to see this going on over two very small dogs who were leashed.
[/size]"My initial reaction was the use of force was excessive. It could have been handled with more communication between the park ranger and Gary. There was no rapport going on. He had repeatedly asked her what was his offense, if he was under arrest and what kind of authority she had. I've never seen a park ranger there in the last seven years we've been going there. We didn't know it had become GGNRA land. I had the same thoughts running through my head, wondering if it was legal for her to do what she was doing. I felt really bad for him. He didn't deserve to get tased. It could have been handled in a different way instead of reverting to that level of force. I never felt he was being aggressive or threatening. I felt just the opposite. I felt the ranger was the aggressor in this situation. It's a very peaceful area. I've never seen any violence there," she said.[/size]

[Casull]

Well, that's one person's story about what happened.  Don't know how true it might be.  Could be she just doesn't like LEO's.  Heck, she may even go around calling them "Ranger Grrrrrl".   

[yellowtail3]

Well, that's one person's story about what happened.  Don't know how true it might be.

It is one person's story... one who witnessed it. I think I understand your disappointment in the eyewitness account.

  Could be she just doesn't like LEO's.

Could be. Or could be, she's telling what she saw. Or both.

Heck, she may even go around calling them "Ranger Grrrrrl".

She might. Me? I never do that, let they're overzealous ranger girls; I call 'em Barney Fife or Officer Friendly (even if many aren't)

[Cuts Crooked]

My initial reaction was the use of force was excessive. It could have been handled with more communication between the park ranger and Gary. There was no rapport going on. He had repeatedly asked her what was his offense, if he was under arrest and what kind of authority she had. I've never seen a park ranger there in the last seven years we've been going there. We didn't know it had become GGNRA land. I had the same thoughts running through my head, wondering if it was legal for her to do what she was doing. I felt really bad for him. He didn't deserve to get tased. It could have been handled in a different way instead of reverting to that level of force. I never felt he was being aggressive or threatening. I felt just the opposite. I felt the ranger was the aggressor in this situation. It's a very peaceful area. I've never seen any violence there," she said.

     Interesting for what she does NOT say. She doesn't say whether the ranger was answering him. She says states that she felt the "perp" wasn't aggressive, but she doesn't decribe his actions,, and she states that she felt the ranger was aggressive, but again doesn't describe her actions.    Man!!! I wish I could use my "feelings" as expert testimony in court!!!!!!!!!!

[Casull]

It is one person's story... one who witnessed it. I think I understand your disappointment in the eyewitness account.

 
You don't understand.  I'm not disappointed.  However, I will hold off on the lynching until after the trial.
 
 

Could be. Or could be, she's telling what she saw. Or both.

 
Could be.  Don't know at this point.
 
 

I call 'em Barney Fife or Officer Friendly (even if many aren't)

 
I find the vast majority to be friendly.  But, then again, I don't call them Barney Fife.

[BUGEYE]

the witness could have been one of those peta/hsus types who walk their dogs down the street so it can poop in MY yard instead of their own.  and they get mad at me when I stick my head out the door and tell'em to get their dog out of MY yard.

was there a sign telling people to leash their dog?  I missed it if there was.

[SHOOTALL]

The ranger had 3 options that are clear from the start. Arrest him , Follow him to his house or forget it and hope he didn't do it again. She added a 4th shoot him in the back to make him comply wiht her demands he not leave the area.
I doubt the dog off the leash is a felony so she used what can be deadly force ( depending on victims medical condition) for a crime that at best most likely involves a fine.
To say she over reacted would be an under statement !

[evidrine]

My initial reaction was the use of force was excessive. It could have been handled with more communication between the park ranger and Gary. There was no rapport going on. He had repeatedly asked her what was his offense, if he was under arrest and what kind of authority she had. I've never seen a park ranger there in the last seven years we've been going there. We didn't know it had become GGNRA land. I had the same thoughts running through my head, wondering if it was legal for her to do what she was doing. I felt really bad for him. He didn't deserve to get tased. It could have been handled in a different way instead of reverting to that level of force. I never felt he was being aggressive or threatening. I felt just the opposite. I felt the ranger was the aggressor in this situation. It's a very peaceful area. I've never seen any violence there," she said.

     Interesting for what she does NOT say. She doesn't say whether the ranger was answering him. She says states that she felt the "perp" wasn't aggressive, but she doesn't decribe his actions,, and she states that she felt the ranger was aggressive, but again doesn't describe her actions.    Man!!! I wish I could use my "feelings" as expert testimony in court!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not going to take the time to elaborate on all of this, but if you look back a little bit you will find that the witnesses do describe all of this in the news reports.

[SHOOTALL]

evidrine , she tasered him in the BACK . Was he charging her BACKWARDS ? Was her life at risk ? Was his life at risk other than by her ? Were the lives of others at risk near by ?

[evidrine]

evidrine , she tasered him in the BACK . Was he charging her BACKWARDS ? Was her life at risk ? Was his life at risk other than by her ? Were the lives of others at risk near by ?

Thats what i've been tryin to point out!!!!! Some people you just cant argue with!

[SHOOTALL]

evidrine , she tasered him in the BACK . Was he charging her BACKWARDS ? Was her life at risk ? Was his life at risk other than by her ? Were the lives of others at risk near by ?

Thats what i've been tryin to point out!!!!! Some people you just cant argue with!

 
yes !

[Cuts Crooked]

I'm not going to take the time to elaborate on all of this, but if you look back a little bit you will find that the witnesses do describe all of this in the news reports.

Been to criminal court recently? None of the witness descriptions given would stand up in court.

[teamnelson]

Been to criminal court recently?

I understand its a happy coincidence when truth and the courts decree are the same.
 
Beginning in 1867 at Harvard Law School (give or take a couple years) our understanding of law reversed. Prior to that, at its most fundamental level, we believed that law is derived from truth. It was not the courts job to make something true, it was its job to discover the truth, and declare it. For context we need to understand that Evolution in the sciences was en vogue, and the best way to get published as a Professor was to participate in the trend. Some law professors found a way to use evolutionary theory in conjunction with the law, and they declared that there is no absolute truth, only what the law declares - this was a 180 degree reversal of all legal precedent to that date. It became very popular as it dovetailed nicely into the growth of evolutionary theory into all aspects of academia.
 
After a few years, all law schools in the US were teaching this principle, and after a few decades, judges, lawyers and police officers across the nation adopted it. Instead of enforcing a law they had received/derived from a pre-existent truth ... an idea our nation was founded on and the creation of our government was based upon, the very foundational principal by which our constitution was written ... our peace officers, judges, justices and congress BECAME the law. Whatever they said was law, regardless of truth.
 
All we're seeing today is the full harvest of that principle coming to rest in a simple interaction between an officer of the law and a citizen. It has been my good fortune to know many officers at local, state and federal law who see themselves in the context of our early history, where citizens had rights endowed to them by a Creator, and law was an extension of that truth. Sadly, there are many who see them selves AS a law unto themselves, and they make a bad name for everyone else.

[SHOOTALL]

Creative police work on her part ?

[jlwilliams]

I understand its a happy coincidence when truth and the courts decree are the same.
 

  There is a small shop about a mile from here that makes monuments.  Mostly grave stones, stuff like that.  Right now I'm putting serious thought into having that quote carved into stone.

[SHOOTALL]

Creative police work on her part ?

.
How so....?
.
..TM7

To taser a man in the back for not having his dog on a leash . What was the threat to the public ? what was the threat to her ? Was her action justifyed ?

[yellowtail3]

To taser a man in the back for not having his dog on a leash... [size=78%]What was the threat to the public ?[/size]

[size=78%]None, based on the articles I've read.[/size]

[size=78%] what was the threat to her ? [/size]

[size=78%]None that we're aware of, except maybe her authority and sense of self-importance.[/size]

[size=78%]Was her action justifyed ?[/size]

[size=78%]I don't know so, based on what I know.[/size]

[OldSchoolRanger]

A similar story for all you off the leash dog walking fans.  This story also has a happy ending.

  LA musician arrested for threatening parks worker     The Associated Press
 Monday, Feb. 06, 2012 | 05:28 PM
   

• E-Mail
• Print
• Text Size:   
•      

    LOS ANGELES --         A Los Angeles musician is free on bail after she was arrested for allegedly trying to run over a park employee who told her to put her dog on a leash.
The Los Angeles Times (http://lat.ms/yJ8oDT) says Arune Kavaliauskaite (kah-vah-lee-OOS'-kate) was repeatedly told to leash her dog at the Eaton Canyon Nature Center in Pasadena on Friday.
The 28-year-old fronts the band Arune & Alternatives.
The musician is accused of yelling and cursing at the county park employee and continuing to let her dog roam unleashed.
The park employee tried to photograph her license plate, but the singer's car lurched forward and allegedly knocked the worker into a parked car.
    She is due in court Tuesday to face a charge of assault with a deadly weapon.     
 
Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/02/06/2712199/la-musician-arrested-for-threatening.html#storylink=cpy

[yellowtail3]

A similar story for all you off the leash dog walking fans.  This story also has a happy ending.

Well, in this case, the assailant is held to account; in the OT, the victim was assaulted, tasered, and arrested, while the assailant maintained anonymity and official CYA cover.


differences, huh?

[jlwilliams]

  People do get irrational in regards to their pets.