Park Ranger Tases Guy Walking Dogs Without A Leash

from the watch-your-back dept

In the latest example of questionable taser use, a man walking his two dogs off-leash at the Golden Gate National Recreation Area was tased in the back by a park ranger, who was apparently trying to make an example of him. The problem was that the guy, Gary Hesterberg, was walking the dogs at Rancho Corral de Tierra, which used to be an off-leash walking area until it was just recently incorporated into the National Park. When the park ranger confronted Hesterberg and asked for his identification, for reasons unknown, Hesterberg gave her a fake name, and then tried repeatedly to leave. Finally, when he started to walk away, the ranger shot him in the back... because she was trying to "educate residents of the rule." Then, he was arrested "on suspicion of failing to obey a lawful order, having dogs off-leash and knowingly providing false information."

It seems that the use of a taser in this situation was excessive and unwarranted. The guy wasn't threatening the ranger in any way, and even if he had lied about his name (not that lying should be a reason to tase someone), the ranger wouldn't have known that at the time, since Hesterberg only gave his real name to the authorities after he got tased. Did the ranger accomplish her goal of "educating" visitors of the park rules? Yes, if educating means "scaring into submission." As Eric Cartman would say, "Respect my authoritah!"


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Donnicton, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 8:35am

    Man, Ranger Smith really became a hardass ever since they had to put Yogi Bear down for eating stray pets.


    (Yogi was never the same after the invention of Bear Canisters....)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 8:38am

    Assertion

    Everybody believes the state has the right to employ violence as a coercion method--whether it's warranted or not.

    If the state doesn't demonstrate their ability to be violent, people might stop believing the state is in charge...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    MPHinPgh (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 8:39am

    Going overboard

    Sounds like the Park Rangers are now part of the TSA.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 8:40am

    The ranger should get a taser enema.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 8:41am

    I do get concerned about the often random use of tasers by law enforcement. Not that I'd find myself in the position that this man did nor would I give a false name there's a real possibility that using a taser on me would kill me as I'm 100% dependent on my pacemaker and the amount of electricity generated by the weapon would destroy it.

    Despite the propaganda of Taser International these devices are not always non fatal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    RedMage, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 8:42am

    I suppose he was also "not cooperating" when he was writhing on the ground in cardiac arrest. It's called being incapacitated, you trigger happy idiots (referring to taser-happy authority figures, not anyone here)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 8:43am

    So.... park rangers carry tazers? I guess bear mace just doesn't cut it anymore.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 8:47am

    Ha, I read the article, it was two lap dogs. If they were two Irish Wolfhounds or Mastiffs, you know damn well she would not have risked tazing the guy. What a coward.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Ima Fish (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 8:49am

    In the right hands, even a tiny little bit of power can go a long way.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Aerilus, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 8:49am

    Re:

    sadly its going to take them tasing and killing a few people with pacemakers or other cardiac conditions then getting sued for millions of dollars before law enforcement realizes that tasers are deadly I keep waiting for some school resource officer to do this since they seem to need tasers so bad because of the scarey highschool students, what is wrong with pepper spray or using your brain and diffusing the situation (especially if its a high school fight) rather than shocking the crap out of a teenager

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    aerilus, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 8:51am

    Re:

    now I want a youtube video of a park ranger tasing a bear does that make me a sadist?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Michael, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 8:55am

    Re: Going overboard

    The TSA is starting to expand their operations to our railroads, bus stations and roads in an attempt to intimidate American citizens. They're turning us into a police state step by step and justifying it with propoganda about terrorism. I'd be more concerned about people who have the ability to trample our freedoms than terrorists. Slavery is a worse fate than death.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Pickle Monger (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 8:59am

    This is clearly bad judgement. I wouldn't have started with the dog owner. ;-) Reminds me of an old joke:

    "A man wakes up one morning in Alaska to find a bear on his roof. So he looks in the yellow pages and sure enough, there's an ad for "Bear Removers."

    He calls the number, and the bear remover says he'll be over in 30 minutes.

    The bear remover arrives, and gets out of his van. He's got a ladder, a baseball bat, a shotgun and a mean old pit bull.

    "What are you going to do," the homeowner asks?

    "I'm going to put this ladder up against the roof, then I'm going to go up there and knock the bear off the roof with this baseball bat. When the bear falls off, the pit bull is trained to grab his testicles and not let go. The bear will then be subdued enough for me to put him in the cage in the back of the van."

    He hands the shotgun to the homeowner.

    "What's the shotgun for?" asks the homeowner.

    "If the bear knocks me off the roof, shoot the dog."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 9:00am

    I see a lot of criticisms of the ranger, and don't disagree, but what do you think she should have done?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 9:00am

    Re:

    In this case it was 26 watts of power at 50,000 volts at up to 15 ft.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 9:00am

    Use of force rules

    Silly me. I always thought that there were rules about the use of force, like eminent danger to the officer or someone else. Are the rules gone, misinterpreted, stretched beyond the imagination of an overly stimulated teenager? Or is this simply pure egotistical power grabbing by anally retentive sociopaths wearing uniforms and acting under the guise of law enforcement?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 9:00am

    The ranger did it wrong. She should have tased the dogs for conspiracy to incite public disorder. A dog without a leash.. Where's this world going to? /sarc

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 9:02am

    The "upside" to this is, without the "nonlethal" alternative would this ranger have shot this vile lawbreaker?

    It seems as we give them more ways to handle situations, they find more reasons to use their new found toys and powers over others. It also seems the more toys we give them the less critical thinking is done beyond mace/tase/shoot on a quick option menu.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Donnicton, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 9:03am

    Re: Re:

    "Park Ranger tases bear - bear eats park ranger *ORIGINAL*"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 9:04am

    Re:

    First off, NOT shoot the guy with a tazer. Second, tell him what he rules he was violating and why he was being detained, in the article bystanders said he asked repeatedly and she did not provide that information so he tried to leave. That would have been a much better start instead of getting embarassed that you're just a park ranger and having to show dominance over the lowly citizens.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 9:10am

    In Soviet USA, the taser walks you!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 9:14am

    The trouble with tasers

    This ranger is clearly unsuitable for the job.

    However, this does raise a larger point. My problem with Tasers lies exactly in their mostly nonlethality. It was obvious to anyone who's paid attention to history that they were going to be abused simply because they won't kill most of the time.

    And look what's happened. When they were introduced to police departments around here, we were constantly assured that Tasers would only be used in situations where a gun would otherwise have been used. That type of usage is, I think, wholly uncontroversial and makes it an easy sell.

    Nowadays, however, Tasers are not used that way. They are, instead, used to torture people into compliance even when they aren't an immediate threat. Many use of force policies even approve of this.

    In my opinion there is rampant abuse of Tasers, both sanctioned and not, and this abuse is at the level where it would be the largest benefit to the public at large to either forbid their use, or treat their use as no different than using a gun.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 9:14am

    Re:

    Despite all the movies you may have seen it is not okay for police to shoot people in the back while trying to escape. In this case, if she wanted to detain the guy, she should have told him she was arresting him and for what reason, if he attempted escape then she should have called for backup, followed the guy, and waited to detain him with others helping. At any point, if the dude attempts to cause harm to officers, then the tase may be used.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 9:15am

    Re: Assertion

    That last statement I think that cuts more to the point. He could out-wit hear in speech so she didn't even try speaking anymore. There were bystanders watching her fail miserably at performing her job even if it was just to give him a warning or write him a ticket. So after being publicly embarrassed by her own poor performance, she assessed the risk level(man+2 small dogs) and decided it was safe for her to use brute force to reaffirm her position as dominant over citizens and "educate" the people around her to this point.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 9:19am

    Don't tase me bro!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 9:21am

    Re: Re:

    The only flaw in that logic is that you're expecting a park ranger can keep up with a man walking two small dogs. What if he jogged? There's no way she could have kept up with him. She would have likely had to ask him to make several stops so she could keep up with him until he either got to his car (and wrote down his licence plate, i'm kidding i'm kidding obviously she wasn't trained to be literate)or maybe even his home if that was nearby.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 9:23am

    Re:

    Now that IS a twist on the story. She was merely demonstrating the leash law by using the tazer as a make-shift leash. That makes alot more sense than just tazing a guy that was done talking to you when you had nothing more to say.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 9:25am

    no excuse

    The ranger should be arrested for assault if not attempted murder

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 9:29am

    Re: The trouble with tasers

    Tazer has such a bad connotation to it. A name change is definitely needed. Something like... Tribble. Everyone would just laugh and smile as they hear someone scream " Don't Tribble me Bro!" or read headlines such as "Man tribbled to death" and "Police tribble crowd for entertainment"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    Vidiot (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 9:29am

    Re:

    Fa-dum-bum.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 9:31am

    Re:

    gee, i don't know

    maybe write the guy a citation for the no leash violation and tell him to put the dog on a leash or go home.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 9:37am

    Re: no excuse

    are you going to go try to arrest her? She might taze you!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 9:40am

    Re: Re: The trouble with tasers

    Just "Ze" in the style of Blackwater.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 9:41am

    Milgram in real life

    The use of Taser is an elaborate real life Milgram's experiment - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    vilain (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 9:46am

    Bust gone bust

    When this all comes to trial if some DA decides to prosecute, I'm sure the ranger will be called to the stand to explain why she tazed the suspect. And to explain why, when asked, "Can I go now?" she said yes.

    If the judge throws this out of court, I would not be surprised.

    If the DA charges this guy and not accept a plea, I would not be surprised.

    If this park ranger continues tasing people with impunity, I would not be surprised.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    Planespotter (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 9:47am

    Re:

    "Excuse me Sir, The park has now been incorporated into the National Park and walking dogs off the leash is no longer allowed. I'm sorry for the confusion and I will ensure that signage explaining this is placed at the car parks, picnic areas and rest rooms as soon as possible. I'm sorry that I have to ask but could you please leash your dogs.

    Thanks Sir and once again on behalf of the Ranger Service I apologise for the confusion."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Paul Wujek, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 9:48am

    taze === electrocute

    Let's just change the terminology, from now on I suggest that this site change the word 'taze' to 'electrocute' in every occurrence.

    Then it will make sense to everybody.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 9:49am

    Re: Re: no excuse

    Metal trashcan lid FTW!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Indy, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 9:52am

    Next up...

    Next up: Frisbee throwers.

    zzzzap!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    Gothenem (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 9:55am

    Re: no excuse

    While I agree the Ranger should be charged, with assault.

    Attempted Murder? Really? With a non-lethal weapon? Sorry, the ranger should NOT be charged with attempted murder.

    Charge with Assault, or Assault with a Weapon. Charge with use of excessive force or even false arrest.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Rob, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 9:55am

    he probably deserved it

    Come on...the guy gave a fake name and walked away? He was probably a pretentious ass of a dog owner who believed the earth was created for him to walk his dog. I'd tase him now if I could, or at least bear mace his dogs.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    DMNTD, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 9:56am

    Re:

    If a LAW enforcer can not give a substantiated reason to why you are being harassed and does not have hand-cuffs on you, it's your right to walk away..that simple.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 9:56am

    This was a law enforcement Ranger, not an Interpretive Ranger. Most people encounter Interpretive Rangers at parks and they're the one's who are generally very friendly and helpful. Not that LEO Rangers aren't generally friendly and helpful, but people should realize that most Rangers are not LEO's and do not carry weapons, nor would they ever consider tasering someone for something like this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    icon
    Machin Shin (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 9:58am

    Re: Re: Going overboard

    Slavery is worth than death. There are plenty who feel this way and before long the government is going to find out that many will make a stand. Freedom or death. It is not pretty but that is the direction we are headed in.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    DMNTD, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 10:00am

    Re: The trouble with tasers

    Exactly, oh it won't be used this way...why? < That can never be answered and since it is so..should be thrown out of use. The power's that lead to control of any one person's life will abuse what it has at hand.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    icon
    Machin Shin (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 10:00am

    Re: Re:

    Pepper spray is just as bad as tazers. What you think happens when you hit someone with asthma in the face with pepper spray? There is a reason they are both called "less lethal", both can kill people.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    DMNTD, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 10:01am

    Re: Re:

    Now this is some sci-fi shit right here. :D

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Dave, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 10:07am

    Overuse of tasers

    is anyone shocked to see this...sorry I couldn't help it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 10:10am

    So nice of you to ignore the crimes he was committing, you people are the problem, not the ranger, who was enforcing the law, he lied to a law enforcement officer, granted at the time, they didn't knwo that, but repeatedly trying to walk away, that is suspicious behavior, like he may be a wanted criminal, you don’t know , the ranger didn’t know, even after being told to stay put, he kept trying to walk away, he got what he deserved, period, end of story

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 10:14am

    Re:

    Nothing, she accomplished the task and that was to have all dogs on a leash or have the people who don't leave.

    What else is there to do?

    Beat the people who walk dogs unleashed?

    She could have recorded the encounter so a next time it could be used as proof to sue the guy.

    The lesson to society here appears that all rules no matter what they are must be enforced by violent acts.

    I could understand if the dogs posed a threat to others, if they were aggressive or something but none of that appears to be the case so why it is ok to use violence for something so stupid?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 10:21am

    The ranger in question will probably get a slap on the wrists and paid leave off until this forgotten and this incident will never been spoken of again.

    BIG-LIPPED ALLIGATOR MOMENT!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    icon
    V (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 10:22am

    I predict...

    I predict a rise in the sale of old fashioned chainmail. Let's see those barbs try to pentrate that... not to mention that conductive nature of the metal will cause the current to take the pass of least resistance... through the metal, instead of through your flesh.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 10:26am

    Re: The trouble with tasers

    Well said sir, well said.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 10:28am

    Re: he probably deserved it

    i think you hit the nail on the head.

    the guy probably was being a dick and this woman was straight up embarrassed and couldn't handle her shit.

    she is the type of person who would cut off her nose to spite her face. this person has no business being in the line of work she does; unfortunately, i feel most aren't up for the task

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 10:34am

    Re:

    or maybe he was just trying to get to his car, where he kept a leash or two for his dogs?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 10:34am

    Re:

    Wow. That was the longest run on sentence ever. Punctuation marks, please!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    icon
    Spointman (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 10:36am

    Re: Re: no excuse

    Assault and battery with a deadly weapon? I was always told that battery means physical contact happened, assault merely means that you threatened the person. IANAL, though, so take that with a grain of salt.

    The deadly weapon part is shakier, but any halfway decent lawyer should be able to make a case that a taser can be used to kill people, even if only by misusing it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    New Mexico Mark, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 10:37am

    Re:

    That one got my "funny" vote! Another gem in the troll treasure chest.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 10:41am

    Re:

    It is not a crime to walk away from a police officer that has given no reason for detaining you. I can be suspicious all day long if I don't appear to be breaking a law they officer can't do anything more to me other than watch, What criminal looks suspicious, obviously they would aim for being inconspicous, at which point the officer should detain every conspicously inconspicous person? Let's just detain all citizens and then only the enforcment personel can be criminals.

    And the ranger was not enforcing the law. She was not in the middle of trying to ticket him, she wasn't even saying why she should listen to him. Law enforcement is not entitled to absolute authority, if they tell you to do 1000 push-ups, you do not have to mindlessly obey.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Ilfar, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 10:41am

    Re:

    "Hey there, were you aware you can't walk your dogs off their leads here? It's a National Park."

    "The rules are the rules, I can see your dogs are unlikely to attack the wildlife here, but I must ask you to please leash your dogs."

    "If you won't leash your dogs, then I have to ask you to leave."

    The point to being an enforcement official is not to start a confrontation every single time, but give em the benefit of the doubt the first time you encounter them. When I was a noise control officer I found it much easier to cheerfully tell people they needed to lower the volume. The few times that didn't work, pointing out the process that was about to occur (I give you a Notice to Reduce Excessive Noise, next 72 hours if I have to come back I do so with police and we take your stuff) worked. For those few that didn't, pointing out the next time I came back would be with the police - well, those who are obnoxious generally know the cops by name, and don't want to meet them for various reasons.

    I had exactly one instance where I had to call for police and nearby guard support, and that was a liquored up young man who learned confronting police officers about why they are on his property is a fast way to play the handcuff game. That's ONE instance in just under a year, while dealing with multiple DRUNK partygoers four nights a week...

    Give someone a taser, they're just going to think they have to use it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 10:46am

    Re: I predict...

    Would they make armor piercing tazer darts? Then what happens if you weren't wearing armor...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    bshock, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 10:46am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I suspect the true flaw in this line of reasoning is the tacit assumption that the ranger had to do anything at all.

    Look at the situation: a guy was walking his little dogs without their leashes. He and the dogs weren't hurting anyone at all. He'd merely broken a rule.

    Enforcement of rules for the sake of enforcement of rules is simply idiotic.

    I suppose you could argue some slippery slope nonsense about one broken rule begetting more and larger broken rules, until we descend into mere chaos.

    But let's be serious.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 10:47am

    Re: Re: Re:

    And they are both better than nightsticks.

    Maybe someday we'll just be able to ask people pretty please, but until that time...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    icon
    isaac Kotlicky (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 10:48am

    Priorities, people...

    You gotta know where they lie...

    Walking your dog without a leash = tasered
    Sharing culture with internet links = extradition and trial on foreign soil
    Operating a cyber locker = Full on SWAT assualt by Seal Team 6 (who were complaining that they couldn't use deadly force...)

    Steal millions under a fake investment Ponzi scheme = police escort to shield you from the media
    Bribing politicians and laundering money/prostitution = Job as a media political analyst
    Stealing BILLIONS via mortgage backed securities and eviciting hundreds of people from their homes = Government fines you 10% of your ill gotten money.

    Sounds fair to me...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    icon
    Rez (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 10:48am

    Re: Re:

    The 'service' part of 'public service' is perhaps the hardest thing for these people to remember. They are supposed to maintain order - one way to do that is to be polite, informative, and courteous. Acting like an ass and getting people pissed off defies the goal. Tasing someone because you couldn't express your ideas properly defies that goal. Hell, groping someone's genitals so they feel violated and unwilling to cooperate defies the goal. We really need to re-evaluate how we define the service that people supply to our nation, because so far its turing into a beatme-rapeme club that nobody can escape.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    icon
    Rapnel (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 10:49am

    Re:

    Are you fucking kidding me with this? Did you even RTFA? You might be one of those dildos that honestly believe someone with any badge can tell you to stand still without being told why but a little common fucking sense could go a long way. "Remain at the scene"? Scene of what? A particular are of dirt sporting a fucking authoritative cunt on a power trip with a badge enforcing a new leash law with a potentially lethal use of force? I don't care if he was Billy the fucking kid. Carrying a badge does not put you at some fantasy level above the rest of society, she is a member of it and should exhibit an extraordinary amount restraint and utilize honed skills in dealing with "confrontational" situations that are not driven primarily by emotion.

    "end of story" - tool - you don't even have the whole story. Ranger needs training. There's your fucking story.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 10:54am

    Wow, a lot of internet tough-guys here. If you were a cop, walking up behind someone and trying to stop them is a good way to get knocked the F out or worse. All they have to do is spin around and land an elbow or slip your firearm from your holster. The dumbass was repeatedly trying to walk away from her instead of handing the situation like a normal, non-douchebag human. Try being a jack like that to a typical sheriff and see how funny he thinks it is. You would be in cuffs and lucky to not have taser darts in you. Dumbass deserved every volt he got.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 10:54am

    Re:

    Posting anonymously is highly suspicious behaviour, like you may be a wanted child rapist, we just don't know even after being given the option to fill in a name, you've decided to post anonymously. You should be hunted down and kicked in the bollocks until they fall off. After all, it's what filthy rapists like you deserve, full stop, end of story.

    Fucking retard.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    icon
    Rapnel (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 10:55am

    Re: Priorities, people...

    Fuck.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 10:56am

    Re: Re: no excuse

    "With a non-lethal weapon?"

    Just a quibble. A taser is not a non-lethal weapon. Tasers can and do kill. Even police departments are shying away from "nonlethal" in describing them as using "less lethal" instead.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 10:57am

    Anyone else turned on by this? When I read the "her" part my "ears" perked up. Yup, pretty hot.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 10:58am

    Re: taze === electrocute

    Except that you are only electrocuted if you have died.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 10:59am

    Re: Re: Re: The trouble with tasers

    Ze Taser, it sounds so gay you're not scared of it anymore. Well you are... for other reasons...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 11:01am

    A bully is still a bully even when they have a uniform on their torso and a taser on their belt. I'd like to hear her side, though, because she possibly felt threatened by the dogs, but this does look like someone who just needed to be mean.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    icon
    Rapnel (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 11:02am

    Re:

    Riiight. And there are no burdens of responsibility whatsoever for the person wielding the authority to use force. Common sense works both ways idget.

    Walking away from someone that is telling you nothing is not a crime.

    Internet tough guys? That's nice. You can take your supposed expectation of subservience to N. Korea and deserve it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    icon
    Atkray (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 11:07am

    Re:

    This response sheds a lot of light on why you have such a warped view of copyright.

    Let me explain.

    No let me summarize

    The use of force was NOT justified there was no threat to anyone except the threat presented by the ranger.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    identicon
    kraabeasa, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 11:08am

    Re:

    Maybe try explaining to the guy that the rules of the park had changed? Giving him a chance to either leash his pets or leave with them? Ignorance of the recently changed rules is not a reason to tase him.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 11:10am

    Way to go ranger! Keep up the good work...people seem to think their dogs are somehow special

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    identicon
    John Doe, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 11:10am

    Re: Priorities, people...

    I would vote this funny except its not so I had to hit the insightful button instead.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 11:20am

    Re: Re: no excuse

    Tasers have killed people. The "non-lethal" is merely an advertising line, it makes it easier for the public to accept.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 11:22am

    Re:

    Tell the man that the rules of the park were changed and that leashes are now required, then leave the man alone since he and his dogs are not harming anyone. There was no need at all to even ask the guy his name.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82.  
    icon
    wvhillbilly (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 11:25am

    Tazing people in the park...

    is a good way to drive business away.

    But I guess they never consider that angle.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83.  
    identicon
    Paul Wujek, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 11:26am

    Re: Re: taze === electrocute

    Yeah, but 'stunned' or 'shocked' don't convey the right amount of force -- 'paralyzed' might be better.

    Anyone got a better word?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  84.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 11:39am

    Re:

    See previous from Binky: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120201/00075917609/park-ranger-tases-guy-walking-dogs-without-lea sh.shtml#c772


    And grow a set of balls. Douchebags like you are why law enforcement thinks they can get away with this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  85.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 11:44am

    Re:

    did the ranger make the arrest or the police? do rangers have the authority to make an arrest?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  86.  
    icon
    Pjerky (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 11:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I guess I have been out of high school longer than I thought (only 10 years) but last time I was there many of the students were as big if not bigger than many of the faculty and some become VERY violent when angry. I have seen plenty of students react with near deadly force against faculty to completely justify the use of tasers and pepper spray in some high schools. I would even go as far as say that tasers are a better option given how few students have heart conditions compared to asthma. And I doubt any have a pacemaker (though I suppose it is possible).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  87.  
    icon
    Pjerky (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 11:51am

    No excuse

    I am not sorry to say, the dumb bitch should be tased in return and then fired. And he should be released with a huge apology. Hell if this happened to me and I had managed to get back up on my own power I would have gone for her throat and wouldn't have stopped until someone put me down. There is no way in hell I would have stood for this from anyone. I don't care who the hell they are. There is no excuse for this behavior by the ranger. None at all!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  88.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 12:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: taze === electrocute

    I prefer "tortured", personally.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  89.  
    icon
    Robert Doyle (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 12:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    As long as laws are enforced by people, there will be problems.

    I for one welcome our machine overlords...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  90.  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 12:14pm

    Manditory Friendliness Law not passed yet.

    Wasn't there an article on techdirt about a guy who would constantly flip off cops he would see while driving, and they showed in court that it isn't illegal to be an asshole, so the cops can't pull him over for JUST flipping them off.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  91.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 12:17pm

    Re: Tazing people in the park...

    it's a National Park (although not in the area where the taser assault occurred) so its business is growing wood not entertaining people, in this case the LESS people it gets, the better for the trees

    what the park needs now is some hunt & kill drones set to automatically kill any human (or dog) that enters the area and put ranger Sarah in charge, she already seems to have a history of abuse^h^h^h work experience.

    http://halfmoonbay.patch.com/articles/name-the-ranger-apologize-and-assure-us-we-won- t-be-unreasonably-tasered

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  92.  
    identicon
    Hereswhatithink, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 12:22pm

    Re: @ Anonymous Coward

    Well since he was walking away ... definately don't shoot him in the back ... she could have given him a warning to next time leash his dogs!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  93.  
    identicon
    Another Dipshit cop, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 12:54pm

    dipshits

    The police wonder why people have no respect for them anymore. This is part of the reason why. This ranger should be fired, charged with assault, and never be allowed to work for any police force. Douchebag

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  94.  
    icon
    ramjet57 (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 1:01pm

    Tazer Ranger...

    Nothing an idiot with a badge does surprises me any more. TSA has set the bar so low that it's hard to believe that any of the other badged buffoons could beat them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  95.  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 1:07pm

    Re: Re: Tazing people in the park...

    Holy crap, if that's her, she hates dog owners doesn't she? Must be a cat person. So this is her what, at least third time tasing people walking their dogs? In one comment on a previous tasing, someone said the guy was being an asshole, but he already had his citation, there was nothing more for her to do!

    Why is it people think you are not allowed to be an asshole or that it's wrong to be an asshole to a cop? I guarantee cops it isn't illegal for cops to be assholes, so where does this come from? If you take your ticket and co-operate with an reasonable request, there's no reason you can't freely say what you think of the situation and the performance of the officers.

    Is it a good idea to be an asshole? Of course not, but if you don't care about the officer using discretion and giving you a warning instead of a ticket, or any of a thousand ways an officer can cut you slack, then go for it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  96.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 1:08pm

    Re:

    ""It was really scary," said Michelle Babcock"

    Mission accomplished. I feel absolutely certain that was the goal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  97.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 1:23pm

    Re: Priorities, people...

    Site still needs a 'Not Funny' button.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  98.  
    icon
    Killer_Tofu (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 1:24pm

    Re: Re:

    As a guy who worked at a state park for a couple summers, at least on the state level Rangers cannot make an arrest. For that they need a minimum of a Conservation Officer.

    Not sure if that carries over into the National level though.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  99.  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 1:30pm

    What kind of wording is that by the way "on suspicion of failing to obey a lawful order." The officer suspected she had a lawful order that he didn't follow? What a broad law, Police Officer : "I ordered them to fight to the death, they had to listen or I would shoot them both,it's Ok because I suspected it was a lawful order."

    The obey an order laws include "lawful" for a obvious reason. Being that she couldn't detain him for complying and she did not state any further business with him such as writing a ticket, there was no lawful reason for him to stay, he wasn't wrong. Her order for him to stay was unlawful, and he is not required to listen to that order. Many people WOULD listen to that order because they're afraid of cops escalating a situation as happened here, and without bystanders it is a "he said/she said" argument that the citizen is very likely to lose in a court.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  100.  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 1:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And they are both better than nightsticks.

    Maybe someday we'll just be able to ask people pretty please, but until that time...


    If a normal person shoots someone who only had a knife, they're charged with using excessive force, since they had a more powerful weapon than the other guy. Never mind that the guy was high on drugs and intent on killing you.

    So explain to me why it's OK for a park ranger to shoot an unarmed guy in the back as he was walking away from her.

    Tasers and pepper spray are supposed to be used for subduing violent suspects with less chance of killing them. They were never intended to be used just because an officer (or park ranger) feels they're not getting the respect that they deserve.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  101.  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 1:55pm

    Re: Re: no excuse

    While I agree the Ranger should be charged, with assault.

    Attempted Murder? Really? With a non-lethal weapon? Sorry, the ranger should NOT be charged with attempted murder.

    Charge with Assault, or Assault with a Weapon. Charge with use of excessive force or even false arrest.


    If the average person were to use a taser on a member of law enforcement, they would be charged with "Assualt with a deadly weapon". Nobody would say "Oh, he only used a non-lethal weapon." In most places in the US, tasers, and even the less effective stun-guns that you have to press against a person, are listed as "deadly weapons".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  102.  
    icon
    Thomas (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 1:58pm

    What's with

    these park rangers? they are turning into the Gestapo.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  103.  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 2:02pm

    Re:

    Wow, a lot of internet tough-guys here. If you were a cop, walking up behind someone and trying to stop them is a good way to get knocked the F out or worse. All they have to do is spin around and land an elbow or slip your firearm from your holster. The dumbass was repeatedly trying to walk away from her instead of handing the situation like a normal, non-douchebag human.

    She was the douchebag for turning a simple, non-dangerous violation of the rules into a major incident. Maybe if she had simply explained that the rules had changed, rather than being on a power trip, the guy wouldn't have just walked away from her.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  104.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 2:25pm

    Re: Re: The trouble with tasers

    Careful... tribbles multiply extremely fast... pretty soon they wouldn't even be able to see what's on the screen with all the tribbles running around the cargo hold...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  105.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 2:32pm

    Re:

    You're absolutely right, it was totally uncalled for.

    The victim (hint: it's not the one with the taser) should have told the park ranger to go fuck themselves, spit in their eye, then pissed on her shoes.

    At least then the taser attack would have been earned.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  106.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 2:50pm

    Hmm. I can't help but think that if someone tazed me while out walking my dogs, they'd have to shoot my dogs, leashed or not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  107.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 3:11pm

    Man walking unleashed dogs

    "It's a National Park (although not in the area where the taser assault occurred) so its business is growing wood not entertaining people, in this case the LESS people it gets, the better for the trees."

    Business is growing food = National Forest, not National Park.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  108.  
    icon
    hmm (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 3:22pm

    I hope

    that the guy sues the Park service itself for employing this woman, and the resulting backlash/massive damages means this woman never works again.

    Perhaps that might send a shiver down the spines of these power-hungry freaks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  109.  
    identicon
    btr1701, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 4:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    > If a normal person shoots someone who only
    > had a knife, they're charged with using
    > excessive force, since they had a more
    > powerful weapon than the other guy

    Not sure where you live, but that's not the case in any state in the USA. The relevant standard isn't 'whose weapon is more powerful', but rather if a person is in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. Once that standard is met, *any* weapon may be used to mitigate the danger in self-defense.

    And yes, being confronted with a knife-wielding attacker would make use of deadly force reasonable, including the use of a firearm in defense.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  110.  
    identicon
    btr1701, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 4:07pm

    Re: Re:

    > Despite all the movies you may have seen
    > it is not okay for police to shoot people
    > in the back while trying to escape.

    In some states it is. It's called the 'fleeing felon rule'. If a suspect has just committed a violent felony and is fleeing the police and is armed and the cops can articulate that if he were to escape, he'd be an imminent and continuing danger to public safety, then they are justified in shooting him as he flees.

    Most states have done away with this rule, but it's still legal in a handful of states.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  111.  
    identicon
    btr1701, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 4:12pm

    Re: no excuse

    > The ranger should be arrested for
    > assault if not attempted murder

    Oh, please. Stop being ridiculous. She didn't attempt to murder anyone. Murder is an intentional crime and there's absolutely no evidence that the ranger at any point intended to kill the dog walker.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  112.  
    identicon
    btr1701, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 4:17pm

    Re: Re: Re: no excuse

    > If the average person were to use a taser
    > on a member of law enforcement, they would
    > be charged with "Assualt with a deadly weapon".

    But they wouldn't be charged with attempt-murder, which is the point under discussion.

    The issue isn't whether the weapon is 'deadly' or not. Anything can be a deadly weapon depending on how it's used. The issue is whether the person had the requisite mens rea, or intent to kill.

    In this case, there was zero evidence that the park ranger intended to kill the dog walker.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  113.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 5:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: no excuse

    The guy was in retreat, he posed no immediate danger, he was not a violent criminal, he didn't commit a violent crime, he didn't appear threatening and still got hit with a weapon that could have kill him, those things are called "less than lethal" but are potentially lethal so maybe attempted man slaughter is more fitting if we want to go down that road.

    Personally I think she should be punished by unpaid leave, have a record of this incident and apologize profusely for what happened to the guy she harmed and put at risk by being irresponsible.

    She was not there to teach people a lesson, she was there to enforce the rules and she accomplished that the moment the guy was evading the park with his dog, that should have been the end of it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  114.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 5:40pm

    Re: Re: no excuse

    No she tried to harm that person and probably there was malice involved in her actions, assault with a potentially deadly weapon could be a good fit for this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  115.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 5:43pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Key point there though is VIOLENT felon.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  116.  
    icon
    vancedecker (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 5:55pm

    If the dog had bitten a small child then...

    ...we would be asking why this rule-breaker wasn't arrested.

    Let's all please try to consider the other side of the equation here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  117.  
    icon
    vancedecker (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 5:57pm

    Techdirt Commission on Higher First Post Standards

    The title should be self-explanatory.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  118.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 6:03pm

    Re: he probably deserved it

    Woot, its now legal to Taze jerks, look out rush hour drivers!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  119.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 6:04pm

    Re:

    He is allowed to walk away if she can't supply a reason for his being detained.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  120.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 6:06pm

    Re: If the dog had bitten a small child then...

    If the man had been carrying nuclear weapon grade plutonium in the dogs buttholes we would be giving the ranger a medal....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  121.  
    icon
    vancedecker (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 6:15pm

    Re: Re: If the dog had bitten a small child then...

    Often times if a dog is off the leash then it wanders outside the 'area of owner responsibility' for waste disposal.

    Then the owner will claim that he/she did not know that the dog had defecated, and therefore does not have to clean up the mess.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  122.  
    icon
    vancedecker (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 6:16pm

    Re: Assertion

    Good Point.

    Use it or lose it, is a well established in legal case law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  123.  
    identicon
    Lord binky, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 8:49pm

    The comments by bystanders reported he told her not to taze him because he had a heart condition.whether he was lying or not because he made that statement her actions with a tazer would be lethal force with intent to kill, you can't aim electricity.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  124.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 10:32pm

    and he got tazed in the back, right??? how did he know??? oh yeah he knew he was wrong, knew he was violating the law, he got what he deserved

    if you are breaking the law, which he was, and being questioned about it, no, you do not have the right to walk away from the LEO

    since from the mouth breathers on this forum, all of you were standing there the entire time and know every minute detail of the event...tools......keep drinking the koolaide sheeple

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  125.  
    icon
    Moby (profile), Feb 10th, 2012 @ 11:52pm

    not enough info

    Taser's are considered non-lethal / less-lethal weapons...Borrowing from Wikipedia, "It is often understood that accidental, incidental, and correlative casualties are risked wherever force is applied, but non-lethal weapons try to minimize the risk as much as possible." In laymen's terms, while using a taser can sometimes result in a negative outcome, it is preferred over shooting someone, which guarantees a negative outcome. This is a primary reason many law-enforcement agencies resort to tasers.

    Contrary to some of the statements here, you are not allowed to walk-away or refuse to be questioned by a sworn officer. It is true an officer should have probable cause to detain you. However, just because you disagree with his reasoning or feel otherwise, you cannot refuse to comply. Under the law, you are required to comply. If you feel the officer unfairly targeted you or behaved inappropriately there are legal and civil avenues you can pursue at a variety of levels.

    Refusing to comply when stopped or questioned and attempting to flee; however peaceful, is an invitation in the use of increased force to detain you. Not to mention, suspicion was heightened when the person lied and gave a fake name.

    I am not condoning the officer's or the citizen's actions as the story is vague at best. Making judgments w/so little info is an exercise in futility.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  126.  
    identicon
    William, Feb 11th, 2012 @ 4:11am

    Re: Re:

    He wasn't shot, he was hit with a taser. I'd say if he wanted to be an arrogent little prick, it was warrented.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  127.  
    identicon
    Michael, Feb 11th, 2012 @ 6:22am

    Re: Priorities, people...

    Best post I've read in awhile. The citizens are treated like criminals for menial actions whereas the real criminals who steal billions of dollars and profit from evicting people from their homes are above the law. Fine double-standard.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  128.  
    icon
    Gene Cavanaugh (profile), Feb 11th, 2012 @ 10:57am

    Tasing in GG Park

    I don't see it that way. The guy was "fleeing". The Ranger had every right to detain him, if only to talk to him, and he was avoiding even that common courtesy.
    Argue that we shouldn't have law enforcement ("somebody shot your child, stole your wallet, and fled? Gee, that's a shame") but if we have law enforcement, and there is a total lack of respect for it on the part of someone, they asked for what they got. I personally feel the Ranger should have been congratulated on enforcing a respect for the law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  129.  
    identicon
    Renee, Feb 11th, 2012 @ 2:56pm

    Re:

    How about politely informing the guy about the change of rules, and letting him leash his dogs or leave the park?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  130.  
    icon
    Togashi (profile), Feb 11th, 2012 @ 4:24pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Also FELON. I can't imagine that walking your dogs without a leash is a felony.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  131.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 12th, 2012 @ 2:25am

    What I want to know is, why didn't the dogs bite and subdue the woman after she tazed their owner?? What's the point of having dogs if they're too passive to act when you're being attacked?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  132.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Feb 12th, 2012 @ 8:36am

    Re: Re:

    It is not a crime to walk away from a police officer that has given no reason for detaining you.

    Think about this though, if you're walking away, the LEO doesn't have an opportunity to explain to you. If a cop comes up to you and says "Hello sir, I'd..." and at that point you leave, and he says "sir, wait, don't leave, I need to talk to you" and you keep going, what is he supposed to do? If he has a legitimate reason to detain (not necessarily arrest) you, is he supposed to chase you while trying to explain what he's doing? Before tasers, I'm guessing he would tackle and handcuff you, and most people would say "well duh, don't walk away from a police officer who just told you to stay put".

    I'm not saying this ranger did a great job, but when she told him to stay there and he left, what would he expect to happen? LEOs are not trained to just let people ignore lawful orders. They're law enforcement officers, not law suggestion officers. I don't know if this order was lawful for sure, but it seems like she would have good faith reason to believe so.

    Maybe a better headline would be "Park Ranger tases guy who leaves against orders". Since the dogs had nothing directly to do with the tasing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  133.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 12th, 2012 @ 10:51am

    Re: Re:

    Depends on why you want it.

    If you just want to see a bear get tazed and suffer, then yes.

    On the other hand, considering a simple tazer would probably just annoy and harm, but not incapacitate a bear, causing nothing more than the severe mauling, if not death of the moron wielding the tazer, if the reason you wanted to see that is to see say, the narcissistic, power hungry ranger from this story get mauled, that would probably fall under 'cruel, but still kinda funny'.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  134.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 12th, 2012 @ 11:06am

    Re: I predict...

    I dunno, chainmail is wicked heavy if you're not used to it, a better idea would probably be leather, as it doesn't weigh nearly as much, far as I know it's not conductive to electricity, and if it's properly treated I really doubt the barbs or whatever from a tazer would be able to penetrate to flesh.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  135.  
    identicon
    robert, Feb 12th, 2012 @ 4:30pm

    sounds like assault.

    this park ranger ought to be prosecuted for assault. if i did this to anyone, it would be assault. i don't care what my reasons for doing so were: if self-defense was not involved, then the act of tasing another human being should be prosecuted as assault. flat out.

    prosecute this dirtbag before someone decides that flipping the park ranger off while walking away is grounds for execution by sidearm.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  136.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 12th, 2012 @ 8:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: If the dog had bitten a small child then...

    so tase the dog then...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  137.  
    identicon
    ma, Feb 13th, 2012 @ 7:03am

    Here in Florida.....This ranger has clearly crossed the line and could have been shot and killed by a legally licensed concealed weapons carrier in self-defense.....And the shooter would have gone home to see his wife and kids scott free. But then again you won't see that here in Florida because of castle doctrine. Only the ones stripped of their rights will be subjected to this in states such as in California. An armed society is a polite society… And by the way, there is no wholesale slaughter here in Florida as liberals would have you believe. Get smart and learn something, the thorn in the side of all anti gunners, read; “More Guns Less Crime” by John Lott. The only statistical and scientific study ever done.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  138.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Feb 13th, 2012 @ 3:30pm

    Re:

    But then again you won't see that here in Florida because of castle doctrine.

    The castle doctrine says you can legally shoot and kill a law enforcement officer who's trying to tase you on public property?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  139.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Feb 14th, 2012 @ 3:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    > > Key point there though is VIOLENT felon.

    > Also FELON. I can't imagine that walking
    > your dogs without a leash is a felony.

    Yes, but we were no longer talking about *this* case. Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) made reference to movies and what the police can and cannot do. Since this case didn't involve the police, we were no longer talking about this case, but rather the broader legalities of when it is appropriate to use deadly force.

    My comment addressed that, not this park ranger situation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  140.  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Feb 15th, 2012 @ 12:51am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Not sure where you live, but that's not the case in any state in the USA. The relevant standard isn't 'whose weapon is more powerful', but rather if a person is in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. Once that standard is met, *any* weapon may be used to mitigate the danger in self-defense.

    And yes, being confronted with a knife-wielding attacker would make use of deadly force reasonable, including the use of a firearm in defense.


    I'm in the US, and while it's not strictly defined in law that you can't use a more powerful weapon to defend yourself, the standard is whether you used a justifiable amount of force to defend yourself. Unfortunately I can't provide any examples at the moment, but I have read news stories about people who non-fatally shot knife-wielding intruders in their homes and were successfully prosecuted for using excessive force. The argument went something like that the intruder posed a lesser threat because they only had a knife, which is a close range weapon, so shooting them from several feet away was excessive force.

    Also, cop friend once told my father point-blank, that if he ever was in a situation where he had to shoot someone, to make sure that he killed the person. In fact, he told him to "empty the gun into him", and then say that he panicked and just kept pulling trigger. The reason being that if you have enough time to take careful aim, or shoot the person in a non-vital area to wound or incapacitate them, you weren't in enough danger to justify shooting them.

    Also, some jurisdictions in the US have a "duty to flee" law, which requires that unless you're in your home, you attempt to flee from a violet attack rather than defend yourself, and that use of a weapon is only justified if you can prove that there was no way for you to flee.

    It's a sad state of affairs, but the rights of victims have been under attack for many years now. Burglars can successfully sue you if they get hurt while breaking into your home or business. If you set up any kind of trap to kill or injure burglars, you will be charged with a crime, even if you've been robbed repeatedly in the past.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  141.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 12:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    > I have read news stories about people who
    > non-fatally shot knife-wielding intruders
    > in their homes and were successfully prosecuted
    > for using excessive force. The argument went
    > something like that the intruder posed a lesser
    > threat because they only had a knife, which
    > is a close range weapon, so shooting them
    > from several feet away was excessive force.

    When it comes to knives, 22 feet is the minimum safe distance for someone armed with a gun. At 21 feet or closer, a person with a knife can lunge forward and cut you before you can raise the gun and pull the trigger.

    Seems unbelievable, but we had drills in the academy that proved it soundly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  142.  
    identicon
    Hilary, May 1st, 2012 @ 8:56am

    Taser's Bring Out the Best

    I'm constantly surprised that tasers are the subject of so many stories. The good the bad and the ugly.

    Like this one, http://badtadmd.com/?p=489 talk about invasion of privacy thanks to the taser.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This