Walking Dog Off Leash - Taserable Offense

[surfaceone]

Some of you may find this brief News Story and Witness Statement of interest.

I still don't know what kinda little doggies we're talking about. What is wrong with these reporters. There was one photo that was perhaps a Jack Russell Terrier. Don't know if he was one of the miscreants or not.

Congresswoman Jackie Speier is calling for an Independent Investigation.

This new addition to the park is 3,800 acres. Seems to be very popular with dog walkers, runners and assorted other park users.

The backshooting ranger is still unidentified. The doggies, too.

It's been a very long time since I have been in Golden Gate Park, and never this new area. I've never been a big Park goer. Seems you could be mauled by a grizzly at Yellowstone, or Tazed for reckless dog walking at Golden Gate.

I can remember the Human Be In, way back in the day.

Those were different days. Say, what is the penalty for reckless dog walking. Isn't it, in the worst case scenario, a ticket?

When did Park Rangers start carrying Tasers? Do they have firearms as well? Will the still unidentified female Ranger find herself on pooper scooper patrol when this all cools down?

Where's Herb Caen and Melvin Belli when you really need them.

 

[carobran]

ORIGINAL: surfaceone





When did Park Rangers start carrying Tasers? Do they have firearms as well? Where's

Probably since peple started giving false info and walking away from officers.

 

[mr.fred]

We have State Park Rangers around here!-------they have arresting powers----carry Big guns ---- a taser or 2------can and will stop anyone!. Essentially they are like our New York State Police!. A few are hot dogs[8D]----but most are doing their job!. I have a few friends in law enforcement and i asked 1 of them today if they can just tas you!!!!-------she said each agency has their own protocol on the use of them[8|]---no real answer !!!---- ~Fred.

 

[Plumbata]

Yo surf, I never knew that "Taser" was an acronym, many thanks for sharing that tidbit.

ORIGINAL: carobran

Probably since people started giving false info and walking away from officers.

lol, good one man, pretty much nails it on the head. []



I personally will never be convinced that the situation was handled properly. There seem to be 2 different schools of thought regarding this issue;

There are the authoritarian, judgmental personalities who thrive on rules and structure.

And there are the libertarian, perceptive personalities who thrive on personal liberties/freedom.

Guess which school of thought I adhere to? []

I have little patience for authority figures and much prefer to interact with others as equals, whether they are handicapped, retarded, a brilliant professor, or the owner of a successful business. "Respect is a two way street", as some cops who visited my school stated years ago. Apparently it only applies to people who aren't police officers... I do not give respect to people simply because of their authority or social status. Society in general is structured to show deference to authority figures, but I'm not a typical member of this society. Some people like to boss other people around (cops) and love having some piece of paper to justify their actions (laws) but such a way of life doesn't jive with me, not at all. Leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone. Respect me, and I'll respect you. Very simple.

I have a long history of interaction with with cops, and although I have met some truly good individuals who are officers, generally speaking they are stupid meatheads who are way too full of themselves, and I have never met one so smart that I couldn't talk circles around them or manipulate them in wonderfully useful ways. And they think they are playing mind games with me? HAH! [] Why is it that I've never met an intelligent cop? I'm sure that they are out there (or maybe they all go work for the CIA/FBI), but seriously, if society is going to give the police officers so much power to infringe upon our liberties, shouldn't they be competent enough to understand, versus just slavishly following the letter of the law? Female cops are typically heinous evil bitc**s with an even more exaggerated mean streak, probably because they have to compete and succeed in a career dominated by macho manly-men (rolleyes). Probably the case with this female ranger.

The kinds of people attracted to law enforcement are by nature of the first school of thought I mentioned. The world needs people to enforce laws and keep people safe and make sure that free transactions between individuals are conducted as agreed-upon, but in my mind, tasing someone for providing false info and for walking away is going way overboard. At least try to physically detain the person and search for wallet/proper ID, if they started fighting then the taser is fine, but it oughta be used in self defense, not as a convenient way to detain some non-violent individual (who was never given a reason regarding why he was being detained in the first place...)

 

[Wheelah23]

I see no reason to go and use a taser. In no accounts did the victim ever make like he was going to attack, which would have justified a taser's use. Seems more like an overly zealous officer wanting to use their shiny new toy.

 

[surfaceone]

My previous understanding of the Park Service, had it that there were Park Rangers and Park Police.

Y'all remember the Park Police, and their thoroughly botched "investigation" into the death of Hillary & Bill's old buddy Vince Foster out at Fort Marcy.

I cannot understand by what possible protocol it is okay to shoot citizens with Tom Swift Electric Rifles for allowing one small dog or two to walk in the park unleashed. Had the mystery rangerette permanently put out the lights of Mr. Hesterberg, his heirs or the doggies themselves, if they got a good lawyer, would own the damn park. Gloria Alred would volunteer in a nanosecond.

This would also be reckless dog walking equipment:

From.

This nifty item is the "Taser X26 shows Taser Cam attachment on the grip of the stun gun."

Taser Cam! Hot damn. This must make for big fun at HQ, on screening night.

"Watch this, Earl. He drops right over on the damn dog, and does a great gator on his little yappy azz."

I've got great respect for genuine law enforcement officers.

Park Rangers, on educational dog walker missions with paramilitary weapons, not so much. This unidentified, unnamed rangerette, not at all.

"Moral and Ethical Implications of Less-Lethal Weaponry

It should perhaps be noted that we here at DefenseReview aren’t necessarily always huge fans of law enforcement/police use of less-lethal control devices a.k.a. less-lethal weapons overall, since there’s a potentially sinister, Nineteen Eighty-Fourish aspect about them (less-lethal/non-lethal weapons). Frankly, they offer A LOT more room for abuse and misuse than do lethal weapons like firearms, and can be overused or unnecessarily used in order to dominate and control people. When an LEO knows that a weapon is less-lethal/non-lethal and therefore either can’t kill or is much less likely to kill the person on whom he/she’s using it, he/she is probably going to be much more inclined and/or quicker to use it on that person than he/she would a lethal weapon like a firearm. In some cases, he/she may use it even if it’s not necessarily the best way to go, or even warranted. Video evidence of some bad Taser shoots bears this out. In some cases, Tasers have been used to punish a subject (i.e. person/human being) for non-compliance, rather than to prevent an imminent attack against the officer(s). Having written that, we’re guessing that Tasers are employed/deployed properly by the majority of police officers, but there have been cases of abuse of the technology." From.

While there are certain situations that warrant taser use, the punishment of Mr. Hesterberg was clearly, not one of them.

 

[surfaceone]

Educate... !Taze!... Repeat

"Tasers remain in legal tug of war
Since 2008, Tasers or electronic stun guns have been a mandatory weapon for all 30 enforcement rangers working for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. That is true even though the exact rules for their use remain somewhat discretionary.
The National Parks Service has no official protocol for the use of Tasers by its officers. Instead, the proper use of electroshock weapons is left up to each individual ranger. The same is true for all the ranger's other weapons, including the baton, pepper spray and handgun, said Howard Levitt, GGNRA spokesman.
"The basic rule is they're permitted to use force based on the situation to assure compliance," he said. "The standard is the officer's judgment."
In recent years, National Parks Service rangers have been the victims of increasing violence themselves. A 2003 study by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility found that Parks Service rangers were 12 times more likely to be killed or injured as the result of an assault than FBI agents.
Regardless, Tasers fall into a special category for criminal law experts because the jury's still out on where the weapon should fall between lethal and nonlethal force. Last October, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals warned agencies that use Tasers. The court ruled that a Seattle, Wash., police officer went too far by using a Taser on a pregnant woman who was driving 12 mph over the speed limit. The court ruling added ammunition for anyone who may file a lawsuit over use of the Tasers by law enforcement.
GGNRA is reviewing the specific details from Sunday when a ranger used a Taser to subdue a dog-walker at the Rancho Corral de Tierra open space it recently acquired from the Peninsula Open Space Trust. Rangers expect a preliminary report to be finished within the next two weeks.
- Mark Noack" From.

I'm definitely staying outta the parks:

"The National Parks Service has no official protocol for the use of Tasers by its officers. Instead, the proper use of electroshock weapons is left up to each individual ranger. The same is true for all the ranger's other weapons, including the baton, pepper spray and handgun, said Howard Levitt, GGNRA spokesman.

"The basic rule is they're permitted to use force based on the situation to assure compliance," he said. "The standard is the officer's judgment."

Hello, knock, knock, knock, "enforcement rangers!" What a concept...

Smokey would be so proud.

 

[rockbot]

thank goodness they didn't taser the dog![]

A pretty mixed topic for me. A raise and use hunting dogs and you better keep them leashed or caged. The problem arrises when I need to remove pesky
pigs from rural and farm environments. They need to be unleashed to do their job and I have to be totally in control of the situation.

 

[surfaceone]

From.

Much better picture of the Dangerous Dog Walker.

His attorney is gonna have a field day.

"An online National Park Service manual says rangers may use force only to defend themselves or others, to make an arrest, to control resisting, threatening or violent suspects, or to disperse a threatening crowd.

Specific policies regarding the use of guns and electric shock weapons are redacted from the online manuals." From.

"This is not the first instance in which a Taser has been used by an eco-enforcement ranger in California.

Two years ago, Chico, California resident Jeff Newman, a former National Forest Service employee, was threatened with a Taser on his own property by ark Ranger Paul Zohovetz, who had materialized on Newman’s doorstep in full battle array. Zohovetz had traveled more than fifty miles to threaten Newman with a citation for posting a commercial flier on a bulletin board in the Lassen National Forest.

Newman commanded the armed intruder to leave his property. Zohovetz, who had already committed criminal trespass, compounded the offense by committing felonious assault with a deadly weapon by pointing his Taser at the man’s face and neck. Newman retreated inside his house and called a friend; after trying and failing to kick in the front door, Zohovetz called for backup from the local police department.

Once his friend had arrived, Newman emerged from the house, only to be handcuffed and dragged away. Newman, a diabetic, had not taken insulin, and went into convulsions. Satisfied that he’d made whatever point he sought to make, Zohovetz released Newman and told him that he was only issuing a “warning†regarding the flier. He also issued a citation for “threatening an officer,†a charge that carried a six month jail sentence and a $5,000 fine.

When the case went to trial in March 2011, U.S. District Court Magistrate Craig M. Kellison ruled that Zohovetz “had no right to remain on Newman’s property once he had been ordered to leave.†He also cited a Supreme Court precedent acknowledging that the “freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.â€

Forest Service spokesman John Heil had insisted that Zohovetz behaved appropriately by driving 50 miles to issue a “warning†and then needlessly escalating a trivial matter into a life-threatening confrontation. In similar fashion, National Park Service spokesman Howard Levitt maintained that the still-unidentified ranger who attacked Hesterberg with a deadly weapon conducted herself appropriately as part of an effort to “educate residents†about the new dog leash requirement, reported the San Francisco Chronicle.

The day is coming when bureaucrats who presume to “educate†inoffensive, law-abiding citizens through electro-shock abuse are going to be taught a few unpleasant lessons of their own." From.

 

[towhead]

[8|]