Park Ranger Tases Guy Walking Dogs Without A Leash

from the watch-your-back dept

Fri, Feb 10th 2012 8:25am — Joyce Hung

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!"

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: dogs, san francisco, taser

142 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Donnicton, 10 Feb 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....)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2012 @ 11:44am
  
  Re:
  did the ranger make the arrest or the police? do rangers have the authority to make an arrest?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Killer_Tofu (profile), 10 Feb 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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- vancedecker (profile), 10 Feb 2012 @ 5:57pm
  
  Techdirt Commission on Higher First Post Standards
  The title should be self-explanatory.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 10 Feb 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...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- vancedecker (profile), 10 Feb 2012 @ 6:16pm
  
  Re: Assertion
  Good Point.
  
  Use it or lose it, is a well established in legal case law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
MPHinPgh (profile), 10 Feb 2012 @ 8:39am

Going overboard
Sounds like the Park Rangers are now part of the TSA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 10 Feb 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Machin Shin (profile), 10 Feb 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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2012 @ 8:40am

The ranger should get a taser enema.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 10 Feb 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Aerilus, 10 Feb 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
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Machin Shin (profile), 10 Feb 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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 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...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Pjerky (profile), 10 Feb 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).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Robert Doyle (profile), 10 Feb 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...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rekrul, 10 Feb 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701, 10 Feb 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rekrul, 15 Feb 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701 (profile), 23 Feb 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
RedMage, 10 Feb 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)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lord Binky, 10 Feb 2012 @ 8:43am

So.... park rangers carry tazers? I guess bear mace just doesn't cut it anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- aerilus, 10 Feb 2012 @ 8:51am
  
  Re:
  now I want a youtube video of a park ranger tasing a bear does that make me a sadist?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Donnicton, 10 Feb 2012 @ 9:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Park Ranger tases bear - bear eats park ranger *ORIGINAL*"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 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'.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lord Binky, 10 Feb 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish (profile), 10 Feb 2012 @ 8:49am

In the right hands, even a tiny little bit of power can go a long way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lord Binky, 10 Feb 2012 @ 9:00am
  
  Re:
  In this case it was 26 watts of power at 50,000 volts at up to 15 ft.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pickle Monger (profile), 10 Feb 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."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Vidiot (profile), 10 Feb 2012 @ 9:29am
  
  Re:
  Fa-dum-bum.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lord Binky, 10 Feb 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 10 Feb 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lord Binky, 10 Feb 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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - bshock, 10 Feb 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.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btr1701, 10 Feb 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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2012 @ 5:43pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Key point there though is VIOLENT felon.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Togashi (profile), 11 Feb 2012 @ 4:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Also FELON. I can't imagine that walking your dogs without a leash is a felony.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701 (profile), 14 Feb 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - William, 11 Feb 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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Planespotter (profile), 10 Feb 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."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DMNTD, 10 Feb 2012 @ 10:01am
    
    Re: Re:
    Now this is some sci-fi shit right here. :D
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rez (profile), 10 Feb 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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DMNTD, 10 Feb 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 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?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ilfar, 10 Feb 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- kraabeasa, 10 Feb 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hereswhatithink, 10 Feb 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!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Renee, 11 Feb 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?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 10 Feb 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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Feb 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2012 @ 9:10am

In Soviet USA, the taser walks you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lord Binky, 10 Feb 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Fenderson (profile), 10 Feb 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lord Binky, 10 Feb 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"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2012 @ 9:40am
    
    Re: Re: The trouble with tasers
    Just "Ze" in the style of Blackwater.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 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...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 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...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DMNTD, 10 Feb 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2012 @ 10:26am
  
  Re: The trouble with tasers
  Well said sir, well said.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2012 @ 9:19am

Don't tase me bro!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2012 @ 9:25am

no excuse
The ranger should be arrested for assault if not attempted murder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2012 @ 9:37am
  
  Re: no excuse
  are you going to go try to arrest her? She might taze you!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lord Binky, 10 Feb 2012 @ 9:49am
    
    Re: Re: no excuse
    Metal trashcan lid FTW!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gothenem (profile), 10 Feb 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Spointman (profile), 10 Feb 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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 10 Feb 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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rekrul, 10 Feb 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".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701, 10 Feb 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.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701, 10 Feb 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
vilain (profile), 10 Feb 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul Wujek, 10 Feb 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 10 Feb 2012 @ 10:58am
  
  Re: taze === electrocute
  Except that you are only electrocuted if you have died.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Paul Wujek, 10 Feb 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?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 10 Feb 2012 @ 12:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: taze === electrocute
      I prefer "tortured", personally.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Indy, 10 Feb 2012 @ 9:52am

Next up...
Next up: Frisbee throwers.

zzzzap!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rob, 10 Feb 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 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
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2012 @ 6:03pm
  
  Re: he probably deserved it
  Woot, its now legal to Taze jerks, look out rush hour drivers!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave, 10 Feb 2012 @ 10:07am

Overuse of tasers
is anyone shocked to see this...sorry I couldn't help it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 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?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2012 @ 10:34am
  
  Re:
  Wow. That was the longest run on sentence ever. Punctuation marks, please!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- New Mexico Mark, 10 Feb 2012 @ 10:37am
  
  Re:
  That one got my "funny" vote! Another gem in the troll treasure chest.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lord Binky, 10 Feb 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 12 Feb 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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rapnel (profile), 10 Feb 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Atkray (profile), 10 Feb 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2012 @ 6:04pm
  
  Re:
  He is allowed to walk away if she can't supply a reason for his being detained.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 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!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
V (profile), 10 Feb 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lord Binky, 10 Feb 2012 @ 10:46am
  
  Re: I predict...
  Would they make armor piercing tazer darts? Then what happens if you weren't wearing armor...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
isaac Kotlicky (profile), 10 Feb 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...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rapnel (profile), 10 Feb 2012 @ 10:55am
  
  Re: Priorities, people...
  Fuck.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Doe, 10 Feb 2012 @ 11:10am
  
  Re: Priorities, people...
  I would vote this funny except its not so I had to hit the insightful button instead.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2012 @ 1:23pm
  
  Re: Priorities, people...
  Site still needs a 'Not Funny' button.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 11 Feb 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rapnel (profile), 10 Feb 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rekrul, 10 Feb 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2012 @ 10:57am

Anyone else turned on by this? When I read the "her" part my "ears" perked up. Yup, pretty hot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2012 @ 11:10am

Way to go ranger! Keep up the good work...people seem to think their dogs are somehow special
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wvhillbilly (profile), 10 Feb 2012 @ 11:25am

Tazing people in the park...
is a good way to drive business away.

But I guess they never consider that angle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 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
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lord Binky, 10 Feb 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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pjerky (profile), 10 Feb 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!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lord Binky, 10 Feb 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another Dipshit cop, 10 Feb 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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ramjet57 (profile), 10 Feb 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2012 @ 1:08pm

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

Mission accomplished. I feel absolutely certain that was the goal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lord Binky, 10 Feb 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 10 Feb 2012 @ 1:58pm

What's with
these park rangers? they are turning into the Gestapo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm (profile), 10 Feb 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
vancedecker (profile), 10 Feb 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 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....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - vancedecker (profile), 10 Feb 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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2012 @ 8:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: If the dog had bitten a small child then...
      so tase the dog then...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lord binky, 10 Feb 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moby (profile), 10 Feb 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gene Cavanaugh (profile), 11 Feb 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
robert, 12 Feb 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ma, 13 Feb 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 13 Feb 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?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hilary, 1 May 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]