Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 158
  1. #1
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,703

    No, it wasn't lightning sir...

    Apparently some people take their jobs just a little too seriously...

    "Babcock said Hesterberg had repeatedly asked the ranger why he was being detained. She didn't answer him, Babcock said.


    "He just tried to walk away. She never gave him a reason," Babcock said.
    The ranger shot Hesterberg in the back with her shock weapon as he walked off, Babcock said.


    "We were like in disbelief," she said. "It didn't make any sense."
    Rancho Corral de Tierra has long been an off-leash walking spot for local dog owners.



    In December, the area became part of the national park system, which requires that all dogs be on a leash, Levitt said.


    The ranger was trying to educate residents of the rule, Levitt said."



    <object id="FiveminPlayer" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="560" height="345">
    </object>

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jugdish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,264
    Giving a false name is pretty GD stupid. If you're gonna break the rules at least man up. That being said, WTF? That ranger should never be allowed to carry any type of weapon again. Welcome to recreating outdoors, 2012.
    Gone are the days we stopped to decide,
    Where we should go,
    We just ride...

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MulletSlayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    90
    Welcome to the new AmeriKa.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    20
    It's a dog off leash! Why not lie? See if you can push it up misdemeanors and felonies. It can be done (easily!)!

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pete Otis Towns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    226
    I would use a fake name too, i got chased by the Wash Park dog police one time while riding with my dog off leash, we would have escaped too if it weren't for my dog getting too tired. I got a ticket in the name of Pete O Towns. Sorry officer no ID on me.
    Without rules, we all might as well be up in a tree flinging our crap at each other. Red Foreman - That 70's show.

  6. #6
    Hairshirt Rider
    Reputation: Loudpawlz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,867
    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail View Post
    Apparently some people take their jobs just a little too seriously...
    Maybe the dogs were "Occupying"

    There is no way you can spin this story to make the ranger look good

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,981
    "Freeze! Put your hands where I can see them. Step away from the dog poo".
    So it seems to me to be, this thing that I think I see.

  8. #8
    Oh, So Interesting!
    Reputation: davec113's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,334
    Funny stuff, but a ranger is a police officer, and it wasn't about educating a man about dogs off leash anymore... he was trying to leave the scene. What did he expect? I'm not sure being tazed was appropriate, but this is all on the guy disobeying the law and disobeying the ranger. He's an idiot, IMO.
    .




    Strava: turn off your dork logger when you're not on sanctioned trails.

  9. #9
    Candlestick Maker
    Reputation: baker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,610
    No real winner here...
    baker

  10. #10
    Team Velveeta™
    Reputation: TomP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,075

    maybe not as one-sided as it seems.

    Quote Originally Posted by davec113 View Post
    Funny stuff, but a ranger is a police officer, and it wasn't about educating a man about dogs off leash anymore... he was trying to leave the scene. What did he expect? I'm not sure being tazed was appropriate, but this is all on the guy disobeying the law and disobeying the ranger. He's an idiot, IMO.
    It's really hard to know what went on without having been there. The story is being related by one side.

    But davec's point resonates. Whether you are a highway patrol officer, park ranger, middle school teacher--taking crap once means being labeled as an authority figure who will roll over and take it again. In military academies and student teaching instruction good advice is: "don't take any crap".

    Cops of all kinds have a hard job, and our world would be a much worse place if they all were spineless goobers who let anything pass once the situation got uncomfortable. Sure, there are going to be some Barney Fifes any time you hand out badges. Keep in mind, Barney was a fearful, insecure dude and his unreasonable stances were the actions of an insecure person (yes, much of my understanding of the world is a product of many hours of situation comedy study).

    An authority figure who is confident and unwavering keeps situations under control. That's something that comes out of experience and understanding of people. Remember, Andy was a successful authority figure who didn't even carry a gun (again with the situation comedy wisdom).

    The fact that this ranger was a woman and the dude she tazed was a man is significant. Female authority figures tend to have it harder just because of gender roles.

    That said, there was a really funny/sad story from here in Mayberry (err, Salida) a couple summers ago about a code enforcement officer who ticketed two little girls for operating a lemonade stand without a permit. That made the Denver Post.
    Tom Purvis - Salida, CO - http://teamvelveeta.tom-purvis.com

    "I like my wimmen like I like my beer--cold and bitter!"

  11. #11
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,559
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Otis Towns View Post
    I would use a fake name too, i got chased by the Wash Park dog police one time while riding with my dog off leash, we would have escaped too if it weren't for my dog getting too tired. I got a ticket in the name of Pete O Towns. Sorry officer no ID on me.
    That's one reason why cops will escalate a situation to the level described. If you're going to play the civil disobedience angle, man up and take the consequences of your action and state your case. Lying and worming your way out of a ticket only ensures that in the future ante will be higher.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pete Otis Towns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by zrm View Post
    That's one reason why cops will escalate a situation to the level described. If you're going to play the civil disobedience angle, man up and take the consequences of your action and state your case. Lying and worming your way out of a ticket only ensures that in the future ante will be higher.
    There is no reason to escalate to tazing someone who is walking a dog off leash in the back as they walk away. If the Ranger couldn't handle the situation she should have called for back-up. And yes I weasled out of a ticket, do I feel bad? Not in the slightest. It was a Sunday morning about 6:30 am, and there was nobody in the park.

    We made a clean dash for it, they chased me clear accross the soccer field in their white van with yellow lights flashing. Man they were pissed when they caught me but no one was tazed.

    If cops continue to over step their boundries and get trigger happy there will be more law suits. Just look at DPD for proof.
    Last edited by Pete Otis Towns; 01-31-2012 at 03:12 PM.
    Without rules, we all might as well be up in a tree flinging our crap at each other. Red Foreman - That 70's show.

  13. #13
    I did it all for the kudo
    Reputation: Short Bus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,302
    Sometimes I wish there was a little more tasering going on. People seem to be loosing respect for the law and for the people trying to uphold it these days. My cousin is a cop, and some of the stories that he tells me is just ridiculous. Fortunately he has a very calm and patient demeanor.

  14. #14
    Oh, So Interesting!
    Reputation: davec113's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Short Bus View Post
    Sometimes I wish there was a little more tasering going on.
    You need to have that as your signature line, lol
    .




    Strava: turn off your dork logger when you're not on sanctioned trails.

  15. #15
    Oh, So Interesting!
    Reputation: davec113's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,334
    Quote Originally Posted by baker View Post
    No real winner here...
    Seems like the ranger won... zap!... thud.
    .




    Strava: turn off your dork logger when you're not on sanctioned trails.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    945
    Quote Originally Posted by davec113 View Post
    Funny stuff, but a ranger is a police officer..
    Not trying to be obtuse but is that really accurate?

  17. #17
    Candlestick Maker
    Reputation: baker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,610
    Quote Originally Posted by davec113 View Post
    seems like the ranger won... Zap!... Thud. :d
    lol
    baker

  18. #18
    Oh, So Interesting!
    Reputation: davec113's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt Disney's Frozen Head View Post
    Not trying to be obtuse but is that really accurate?
    Yes, although jurisdiction is sometimes limited to the place they are employed to oversee and the surrounding areas.
    .




    Strava: turn off your dork logger when you're not on sanctioned trails.

  19. #19
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,559
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Otis Towns View Post
    There is no reason to escalate to tazing someone who is walking a dog off leash in the back as they walk away. If the Ranger couldn't handle the situation she should have called for back-up. And yes I weasled out of a ticket, do I feel bad? Not in the slightest. It was a Sunday morning about 6:30 am, and there was nobody in the park.

    We made a clean dash for it, they chased me clear accross the soccer field in their white van with yellow lights flashing. Man they were pissed when they caught me but no one was tazed.

    If cops continue to over step their boundries and get trigger happy there will be more law suits. Just look at DPD for proof.
    Like I said, if you're going to flaunt disregarding the law, you should man up and accept responsibility for your actions. If you think you're being wronged, take it to court, take it to public opinion, get the law changed. I do know as soon as you run or walk away from an LEO of any kind you're asking for trouble. Only someone with a major sense of entitlement would expect otherwise.

  20. #20
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,703
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt Disney's Frozen Head View Post
    Not trying to be obtuse but is that really accurate?
    Depends on the jurisdiction.

    "State Parks - working title – Park Ranger. During the first year as a Park Ranger, this position will be required to attend a Colorado POST certified law enforcement academy. At the successful completion of this training the employee will be certified as a Colorado Peace Officer and will act in accordance to the official duties and authority of a Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) and Outdoor Recreation Officer. "
    State Employment

    FWIW the State Parks Rangers I've worked with carry guns and handcuffs, not zappers and zip ties.

  21. #21
    Stiff yet compliant
    Reputation: Moustache rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,895
    Quote Originally Posted by zrm View Post
    Like I said, if you're going to flaunt disregarding the law, you should man up and accept responsibility for your actions. If you think you're being wronged, take it to court, take it to public opinion, get the law changed. I do know as soon as you run or walk away from an LEO of any kind you're asking for trouble. Only someone with a major sense of entitlement would expect otherwise.
    According to the article the area has been a long time off leash dog walking spot and had a brand new rule change. Probably unknown to most people using the area.

    Sounds like blatant flaunt disregarding to me.

    According to witnesses the man repeatedly asked why he was being detained and the ranger refused to answer.

    More blatant flaunt disregard.

    How dare this blatant flaunt disregarder feel entitled to not be detained without cause!

    The ranger was trying to educate residents of the rule, Orwell said

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,981
    The article says that the ranger didn't reply to the "alleged" perp, but that doesn't mean she hadn't answered his questions numerous times before there were witnesses.

    I bumped into a female ranger in the Dowdy Draw (oops, sorry lidarman, I really meant Doudy---please forgive me???) and we were just shooting the ****, mainly about trailhead thievery. Her piece was on her other side, I didn't see it. I asked her "so, you packing?" She turned the other way and there her gun was. I asked her about her firearm training and to make a short story even shorter, she explained she was a police officer with a ton of training, hopefully able to deal with any manner of bad behavior in her territory.

    She basically let me know she would not take any **** from anybody, just like any police officer anywhere wouldn't. More power to them, I say. I've had police come to my aid before and I was sure glad they were there.
    So it seems to me to be, this thing that I think I see.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pete Otis Towns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by zrm View Post
    Like I said, if you're going to flaunt disregarding the law, you should man up and accept responsibility for your actions. If you think you're being wronged, take it to court, take it to public opinion, get the law changed. I do know as soon as you run or walk away from an LEO of any kind you're asking for trouble. Only someone with a major sense of entitlement would expect otherwise.
    If you say "man up" one more time, i'm going to have to take your man card.

    This happened in my mid twenties and as i recall it was more about me saying Fock you to the man and seeing if my dog and I could out run the Wash Park dog Police.

    Don't take your self so seriously; what you've never run a stop sign Mr. man up?
    Without rules, we all might as well be up in a tree flinging our crap at each other. Red Foreman - That 70's show.

  24. #24
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,559
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Otis Towns View Post
    If you say "man up" one more time, i'm going to have to take your man card.

    This happened in my mid twenties and as i recall it was more about me saying Fock you to the man and seeing if my dog and I could out run the Wash Park dog Police.

    Don't take your self so seriously; what you've never run a stop sign Mr. man up?
    Try not to run stop signs or stop lights. Even when I was in my 20s. I've seen a couple cars crushed like beer cans with mashed up little pulps inside and that's a couple too many. Not pretty.

    If I did run a stop sign and I got busted I wouldn't try to lie or bulls**t my way out of it Not the way I was raised I guess.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    PTO - you're lucky you didn't land in jail with that running from the cops stunt. Refusing to give ID can land you in jail, too. I'm guessing this incident transpired before 9/11/2001. Things have changed dramatically since then when dealing with police (of any kind, that includes park rangers). As ZRM said, "[Own] up," to what you did and walk away. If you don't like it, that is what the courts are for.

    The man in the article could have walked away with a small fine. Now, because of his arrogance he is facing some serious penalties.

    The agage--give respect, get respect--rings true here.

  26. #26
    one sick puppy
    Reputation: YetiBear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    326
    "Bailiff, Whack his Pee Pee." -------Cheech and Chong
    Saddle up, Effendi. We ride.

  27. #27
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,559
    Quote Originally Posted by YetiBear View Post
    "Bailiff, Whack his Pee Pee." -------Cheech and Chong
    How the hell was I supposed to know she was thoiteen, hell, she looked sixteen..

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,981
    "She lied about her age. She told me she was 13".
    So it seems to me to be, this thing that I think I see.

  29. #29
    Stiff yet compliant
    Reputation: Moustache rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,895
    Quote Originally Posted by xcguy View Post
    The article says that the ranger didn't reply to the "alleged" perp, but that doesn't mean she hadn't answered his questions numerous times before there were witnesses.
    Any other speculation you care to offer? Witnesses (you know, someone that was actually there) said he asked and was given no reason for the stop. The most likely explanation is that he didn't know why. Occam's taser.
    You ARE entitled to be given a reason why law enforcement is detaining you.

    Tasers are not safe. Hundreds of people have died after being shot with a Taser. Did this ranger really think it was worth the risk of killing someone over a dog leash?



    Last edited by Moustache rider; 02-01-2012 at 04:09 PM.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,587
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    PTO - you're lucky you didn't land in jail with that running from the cops stunt. Refusing to give ID can land you in jail, too. I'm guessing this incident transpired before 9/11/2001. Things have changed dramatically since then when dealing with police (of any kind, that includes park rangers). As ZRM said, "[Own] up," to what you did and walk away. If you don't like it, that is what the courts are for.

    The man in the article could have walked away with a small fine. Now, because of his arrogance he is facing some serious penalties.

    The agage--give respect, get respect--rings true here.
    I guess I was asleep when the USA became the GDR.

    We used to be proud that we WEREN'T the same as the USSR and the GDR. Now, ONE incident means we are supposed to be sheep and bend over for treatment that actually makes a lot of what went on behind the Iron Curtain look tame.

    F**ck.

  31. #31
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,559
    Quote Originally Posted by honkinunit View Post
    I guess I was asleep when the USA became the GDR.

    We used to be proud that we WEREN'T the same as the USSR and the GDR. Now, ONE incident means we are supposed to be sheep and bend over for treatment that actually makes a lot of what went on behind the Iron Curtain look tame.

    F**ck.

    Really? Please elaborate on the comparison between the OP's described incident and what went on behind the iron curtain.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,587
    Let's see. Suspect confronted by "authority" and attempted to be apprehended without being advised of a cause, then shot in the back while walking away. Suspect was doing nothing other than walking their dog in an area where walking dogs has been allowed for years.

    Is it clear now?

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pete Otis Towns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by zrm View Post
    Try not to run stop signs or stop lights. Even when I was in my 20s. I've seen a couple cars crushed like beer cans with mashed up little pulps inside and that's a couple too many. Not pretty.

    If I did run a stop sign and I got busted I wouldn't try to lie or bulls**t my way out of it Not the way I was raised I guess.
    Well Ned Flanders, I can only strive to be a perfect upstanding citizen like you one day. Have a great day.
    Without rules, we all might as well be up in a tree flinging our crap at each other. Red Foreman - That 70's show.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,228
    Taze 'em all, take names later.

  35. #35
    friend of Apex
    Reputation: WKD-RDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,932
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    If you don't like it, that is what the courts are for.

    In this case, the courts will be there to see that the taxpayers pay his lawsuit claims.
    the drugs made me realize it's not about the drugs

  36. #36
    friend of Apex
    Reputation: WKD-RDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,932
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    The agage--give respect, get respect--rings true here.
    You mean like answering the question - Why am I being detained?

    Maybe if she gave him a tad of respect and/or engaged him a bit it wouldn't have happened that way. He was not being hostile or confrontational. He provided a name, just had no ID. She could have done any number of things before zapping the guy back into obedience. That's what I do to my dogs (works like a charm!), but it shouldn't be practiced on people.

    Shame on the park service for not teaching their officers any social skillz, and letting this moron carry a deadly weapon without proper training. <-(assuming, based on the incedent)
    the drugs made me realize it's not about the drugs

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    Quote Originally Posted by honkinunit View Post
    I guess I was asleep when the USA became the GDR.

    We used to be proud that we WEREN'T the same as the USSR and the GDR. Now, ONE incident means we are supposed to be sheep and bend over for treatment that actually makes a lot of what went on behind the Iron Curtain look tame.

    F**ck.
    "lolz," "wut?" To quote Wushu Chicken.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    Quote Originally Posted by WKD-RDR View Post
    You mean like answering the question - Why am I being detained?

    Maybe if she gave him a tad of respect and/or engaged him a bit it wouldn't have happened that way. He was not being hostile or confrontational. He provided a name, just had no ID. She could have done any number of things before zapping the guy back into obedience. That's what I do to my dogs (works like a charm!), but it shouldn't be practiced on people.

    Shame on the park service for not teaching their officers any social skillz, and letting this moron carry a deadly weapon without proper training. <-(assuming, based on the incedent)
    Reread the article. I think you missed some key points.

    As long as we're making gross assumptions, let's assume the witnesses did not see the entire incident. Is it possible the ranger told the man he was being detained for not having his dogs on leash? There is no rule that the officer has to repeat themselves or to answer a, probably, indignant and belligerent question.

    It seems the ranger's protocol was pretty typical (not that that fact is unsettling). I think your understanding, and mine as well, of law enforcement's methods is not understood, even on an elementary level.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,587
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    Reread the article. I think you missed some key points.

    As long as we're making gross assumptions, let's assume the witnesses did not see the entire incident. Is it possible the ranger told the man he was being detained for not having his dogs on leash? There is no rule that the officer has to repeat themselves or to answer a, probably, indignant and belligerent question.

    It seems the ranger's protocol was pretty typical (not that that fact is unsettling). I think your understanding, and mine as well, of law enforcement's methods is not understood, even on an elementary level.

    What the hell is there to understand? The ranger used a potentially lethal weapon on a guy who was WALKING HIS DOG IMPROPERLY.

    Roll that around in your head for a moment.

    There is no threat to the ranger, no threat to anyone around them. The rangerette is just pissed that the guy is not kissing her ass. For that she shoots the guy.

    And you are OK with this?

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,587
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    "lolz," "wut?" To quote Wushu Chicken.

    I give this post an IQ score of 75.

    I'm feeling generous.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255

    and this is just an examination of one sentence*

    Quote Originally Posted by honkinunit View Post
    What the hell is there to understand? The ranger used a potentially lethal weapon on a guy who was WALKING HIS DOG IMPROPERLY.

    Roll that around in your head for a moment.

    There is no threat to the ranger, no threat to anyone around them. The rangerette is just pissed that the guy is not kissing her ass. For that she shoots the guy.

    And you are OK with this?
    No, because there is a lot left out in your description of the situation. I, highly, doubt your assumptions are even close to the actual situation. Your overreaction only further implies your failure to see this objectively. I think you mean illegally when you say, "improperly[sic]." However, the situation does not end at that transgression. By giving a false name and not providing ID the ranger detained him, more than likely to radio in the information he gave her. Then, by walking away from her he made an even larger offense. Here is the crux of the situation: one cannot simply walk away from an officer when they are writing a summons. Now, a hypothetical: what is the ranger supposed to do? Her job dictates she detains this man. What are her options to complete that task? Reasoning is out, the man denied that course when he gave false information. She can let the man walk away and follow him. This, of course, is illogical and, probably, violates protocol. She can try to physically stop him. The problem here is she is open to attack from the man. Finally, she can "'deploy her' electric-shock weapon" to stop the offender. It is logical that this is the last choice. The man picked this path. At several points he could have changed the outcome of this situation. This man deserves derision, not the ranger; who did her job.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,981
    Quote Originally Posted by honkinunit View Post
    What the hell is there to understand? The ranger used a potentially lethal weapon on a guy who was WALKING HIS DOG IMPROPERLY.

    Roll that around in your head for a moment.

    There is no threat to the ranger, no threat to anyone around them. The rangerette is just pissed that the guy is not kissing her ass. For that she shoots the guy.

    And you are OK with this?
    I don't think I've ever read such a misinterpretation of a police officer/perp confrontation as yours, honkinunit. You just must hate cops to your core and can "see" nothing but the "victim's" side of the story. A story that is only being told in a newspaper, I'm sure, inadequately. Try calling the police officer I met in the Doudy parking lot a "rangerette".
    So it seems to me to be, this thing that I think I see.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255

    CxHyOz --> CO2 + H2O

    Quote Originally Posted by xcguy View Post
    Try calling the police officer I met in the Doudy parking lot a "rangerette".
    His use of the pejorative "rangerette" implies his hate overlaps into some form of misogyny, as well.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,587
    Quote Originally Posted by xcguy View Post
    I don't think I've ever read such a misinterpretation of a police officer/perp confrontation as yours, honkinunit. You just must hate cops to your core and can "see" nothing but the "victim's" side of the story. A story that is only being told in a newspaper, I'm sure, inadequately. Try calling the police officer I met in the Doudy parking lot a "rangerette".

    I will if she gives me reason. It is not illegal to call someone names, except perhaps in the bizarre world inhabited by some people around here.

    Unless it was in the Patriot Act somewhere.

    Again, the 'perp' was an errant dog walker. Let's put this in perspective. If a private security officer tazed a guy for letting his poodles poop on someone's private property, I'm guessing you'd be all behind it?

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,587
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    No, because there is a lot left out in your description of the situation. I, highly, doubt your assumptions are even close to the actual situation. Your overreaction only further implies your failure to see this objectively. I think you mean illegally when you say, "improperly[sic]." However, the situation does not end at that transgression. By giving a false name and not providing ID the ranger detained him, more than likely to radio in the information he gave her. Then, by walking away from her he made an even larger offense. Here is the crux of the situation: one cannot simply walk away from an officer when they are writing a summons. Now, a hypothetical: what is the ranger supposed to do? Her job dictates she detains this man. What are her options to complete that task? Reasoning is out, the man denied that course when he gave false information. She can let the man walk away and follow him. This, of course, is illogical and, probably, violates protocol. She can try to physically stop him. The problem here is she is open to attack from the man. Finally, she can "'deploy her' electric-shock weapon" to stop the offender. It is logical that this is the last choice. The man picked this path. At several points he could have changed the outcome of this situation. This man deserves derision, not the ranger; who did her job.

    Did you even read the article? Did you somehow miss the eyewitness accounts?

  46. #46
    MFin' Princess
    Reputation: TVC15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,488
    Quote Originally Posted by honkinunit View Post
    Did you even read the article? Did you somehow miss the eyewitness accounts?
    I'm 100% with you honkinunit. Tazing for this offense is unjustifiable. I'm stunned (forgive the pun) that so many of the members here take this excessive force so casually. Why, I don't know. You see an eerie acceptance of abuse of power so often these days.

    Also of note from the article, after the tazing: "San Mateo County sheriff's deputies and paramedics then arrived and Hesterberg gave his real name, the park spokesman said..." which begs the question why weren't the deputies simply called first -- without any tazing? Had that been the case the paramedics would not have to have been called at all. D'uh. Jeeeeeezus.

    Last but not least, how 'bout these enforcement activities be done with two Rangers, one on the trail and one at the parking lot? The Trigger-happy Rangerette could have simply radioed down a description to her fellow officer, gotten the dude's license plate, and settled this matter rationally. Without any violence at all. What a concept.

    You guys cheering on this excessive force scare the hell outta me.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    I'm not cheering any use of force. I'm, simply, saying to deride the ranger and victimize a criminal does not make sense. The man, not the ranger escalated this situation. He brought on the use of force. I've already stated how things have changed, regarding police interactions, since 9/11/2001. I used to taunt police and flaunt the law. Now, if, and I never want to, I interact with the police I use simple objective language and plenty of courtesy. Even when going through holding and booking. Never, ever, escalate an interaction with a police officer (or anyone holding a gun, for that matter).

    Calling in a police shooting and call for ambulance would bring other officers. There is not much to infer from that statement.

    Are you going to accept higher taxes to pay for more rangers? The people in California are not willing to do so. To wit, this guy is lucky that park is even open. Many state parks in CA are closed due to budget shortfalls.



    Remember, news articles are written at a 6th grade level. Meaning, they're pretty straight forward.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Moustache rider View Post
    How dare this blatant flaunt disregarder feel entitled to not be detained without cause!
    Walking dogs off-leash in an on-leash area isn't cause?

  49. #49
    MFin' Princess
    Reputation: TVC15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,488
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    The man, not the ranger escalated this situation.
    The Ranger escalated the situation when she shot him in the back with with 50,000 volts -- as he was walking away from her.

    They BOTH acted wrong. Hopefully reasonable people can agree on that.

    Given the details in this case, my guess is that the dude will serve a few hours of community service for giving the false name and shell out $50 for the off-lease violation, and in the end the Parks Department will be writing him a much, much bigger check. If I were on the jury I'd award him $1 for every volt that was unjustifiably shot through his nervous system by this nutbag.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,196
    He should have put up with the officer and did what she asked.

    He can key her car at a later time...
    lean forward

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,981
    Quote Originally Posted by honkinunit View Post
    I will if she gives me reason. It is not illegal to call someone names, except perhaps in the bizarre world inhabited by some people around here.

    Unless it was in the Patriot Act somewhere.

    Again, the 'perp' was an errant dog walker. Let's put this in perspective. If a private security officer tazed a guy for letting his poodles poop on someone's private property, I'm guessing you'd be all behind it?
    That's your biggest problem here, man. You're equating a ranger with a private security. The ranger is a police officer. How much **** do you give a police officer talking to you?
    So it seems to me to be, this thing that I think I see.

  52. #52
    Stiff yet compliant
    Reputation: Moustache rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,895
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    Walking dogs off-leash in an on-leash area isn't cause?
    I didn't say she didn't have cause to stop him. He is entitled to know the reason for the stop. All indications are she didn't tell him, and he didn't know it was a newly designated on-leash area.

    Even if he did know these things use of a taser is in no way justified in this situation.

    And no, things have not changed since 9/11.
    If you actually believe this should be the case. To use a tired but true cliche, the terrorists have won.

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,228
    Seems like the ranger needs some training on the use of appropriate force. I think the tazer is a little severe for punishing illegal dog pooping. Oh, but the guy broke the law so any force is appropriate to keep that guy from escaping the scene.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,981
    [QUOTE=Moustache rider;8963289]Any other speculation you care to offer? Witnesses (you know, someone that was actually there) said he asked and was given no reason for the stop. The most likely explanation is that he didn't know why. Occam's taser.
    You ARE entitled to be given a reason why law enforcement is detaining you.

    Tasers are not safe. Hundreds of people have died after being shot with a Taser. Did this ranger really think it was worth the risk of killing someone over a dog leash?

    I can't believe you all are believing that the article is giving the whole story. Amazing.
    So it seems to me to be, this thing that I think I see.

  55. #55
    friend of Apex
    Reputation: WKD-RDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,932
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    She can let the man walk away and follow him. This, of course, is illogical and, probably, violates protocol. She can try to physically stop him. The problem here is she is open to attack from the man. Finally, she can "'deploy her' electric-shock weapon" to stop the offender. It is logical that this is the last choice. The man picked this path. At several points he could have changed the outcome of this situation. This man deserves derision, not the ranger; who did her job.
    Like I said, engage the guy in coversation. The area has been a long time hang out for locals with off leash dogs, and only recently was it taken over by the NPS. Perhaps some education would have went a long way. She could have called for back-up. Told him "stop or I'll shoot" , something... anything but jump to the taser at her first inkling of frustration, this was not her last choice. The whole situations reeks of poor training and lack of discipline. She could have changed the situation with some professionalism.





    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    Are you going to accept higher taxes to pay for more rangers? The people in California are not willing to do so. To wit, this guy is lucky that park is even open. Many state parks in CA are closed due to budget shortfalls.
    And the taxpayers get to pay when this guy wins his lawsuit. Swell use our funds, eh Spicoli.
    Last edited by WKD-RDR; 02-01-2012 at 09:56 PM.
    the drugs made me realize it's not about the drugs

  56. #56
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,703
    Quote Originally Posted by xcguy View Post
    I can't believe you all are believing that the article is giving the whole story. Amazing.
    I did some Googl'ng and the Parks Spokeperson said that the person was
    "arrested and given three charges: failure to obey a lawful order, having
    dogs off-leash, and knowingly providing false information."

    The story is all she wanted to do was "educate" him on park rules. He gave
    his name and she called it in to dispatch to run a check on it.

    What really doesn't make sense, and the reason I think she is lying is this;

    If all she wanted to do was "educate" him on off-leash rules, why would she
    ask his name and then call it in to the dispatch to run a background
    check? And even if it came back as a false identitity, why would she
    care? All he was doing was walking his dogs off-leash. BFD.

    She was looking for something to arrest him on. That's the truth.
    She probably didn't even realize that's what she was doing since
    that's how she was trained and conditioned at the academy. We're
    all being conditioned that this is "normal".

    You can be tasered, waterboarded, detained indefinitely, denied habius corpus, and never see your family again, just for saying something that
    other people don't like or providing false information. And nobody cares...
    Welcome to 1984.

    Seriously, illegal aliens give false identities every day to the police,
    hospitals, utility companies, banks, even the IRS and they don't get
    zapped. Do you not see the double standard being applied to Americans?

    We're under martial law. If you're an American, you can be stopped at
    any time and asked to produce your papers. The TSA is even setting up
    roadside checkpoints now. The TSA... a government contractor.

    Nope. I'm sorry dude. This is way out of line for a park ranger. She should
    be fired immediately before she kills someone. Better yet, reassign her to
    the Arizona or Texas border where she can do some good.

  57. #57
    Oh, So Interesting!
    Reputation: davec113's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,334
    This isn't a black and white issue. The dude was asking for it, but the ranger should have done more before tazing the guy.

    Also, this isn't about dogs, it's about him trying to leave the scene where he was being detained by a law enforcement officer. Conspiracy theories and the fact that our rights are being eroded have NOTHING to do with this situation. No law enforcement officer today, in the past, or in any country in this world is going to let someone just walk away when they have been detained. I think he was an idiot to try. At the same time I think the ranger should have made sure she was completely out of options before using the tazer, but it is only speculation whether she did or not.
    .




    Strava: turn off your dork logger when you're not on sanctioned trails.

  58. #58
    Stiff yet compliant
    Reputation: Moustache rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,895
    You know who the only winner in all of this is?
    Uncle Trail.
    I imagine him sitting in his lair (unfinished basement), looking into his crystal ball (Acer laptop) cackling at what he has created.
    Look at these people, they are going to argue for pages and pages.
    Muwahahahahaha!
    Everything is coming together as I have planned. I need to start even more threads. But what next? Hmmm...
    CHEMTRAILS!

  59. #59
    learning2rde
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    38
    This is an interesting perspective as the man was in fact walking away he did not attempt to harm the ranger, anyone else, he was not under arrest, from the sounds of it she had no reason to question whether he was telling her his correct name or not, if she did not ask him to return and give him a reason for stopping him then with all these things I don't see the need for extreme action. It would seem to me the ranger's carry guns and protective devices for the reason protection of themselves and others. This does not sound like a situation where anyone was in danger of anything.
    Tiffany
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    I'm not cheering any use of force. I'm, simply, saying to deride the ranger and victimize a criminal does not make sense. The man, not the ranger escalated this situation. He brought on the use of force. I've already stated how things have changed, regarding police interactions, since 9/11/2001. I used to taunt police and flaunt the law. Now, if, and I never want to, I interact with the police I use simple objective language and plenty of courtesy. Even when going through holding and booking. Never, ever, escalate an interaction with a police officer (or anyone holding a gun, for that matter).

    Calling in a police shooting and call for ambulance would bring other officers. There is not much to infer from that statement.

    Are you going to accept higher taxes to pay for more rangers? The people in California are not willing to do so. To wit, this guy is lucky that park is even open. Many state parks in CA are closed due to budget shortfalls.



    Remember, news articles are written at a 6th grade level. Meaning, they're pretty straight forward.

  60. #60
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,703
    Quote Originally Posted by Moustache rider View Post
    You know who the only winner in all of this is?
    Uncle Trail.
    I imagine him sitting in his lair (unfinished basement), looking into his crystal ball (Acer laptop) cackling at what he has created.
    75% of all Internet users browse the Internet while sitting on the toilet. It's where great things happen. It's a win/win.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255

    How to get tazered in 4 easy steps:

    Here are four easy steps to get tazered, or maced, by a law officer:

    1) When detained (this means you broke the law) refuse ID

    2) Give false information (the officer is going to radio in your information to confirm it)

    3) Act indignant and belligerent (i.e. berating the officer verbally)

    4) Attempt to leave the scene.

    Seriously, if you don't think it is that simple to escalate an interaction with an officer, go try it. Is it frightening that it is this simple? Emphatically, yes. In fact, it is terrifying.

    No matter how right I think I am, when confronted by a person carrying a gun I am going to do exactly as they say. I'll take my chances with a judge and/or jury. There is no reason at the end of a gun barrel.

    Personally, I have been in a situation like this. Only, I didn't go past the third step. Luckily for me, the officer who was summonsing me must have had the patience of a saint. In all honesty, and in retrospect, he had every right to arrest me. The reason he did not, is that I realized, at some point, the gravity of my predicament, and submitted to his requests. Trust me when I say, the bad karma I garnered from that day still lingers over my shoulder.

    Whiskey and youthful arrogance are never a good mixture:

    Name:  0.jpg
Views: 166
Size:  35.8 KB

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    Quote Originally Posted by WKD-RDR View Post
    And the taxpayers get to pay when this guy wins his lawsuit. Swell use our funds, eh Spicoli.
    He'll only win his lawsuit if people on the jury find in his favor, beyond a reasonable doubt. I'd say there is a lot of reasonable doubt is this situation.

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jackbombay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    672
    Quote Originally Posted by Moustache rider View Post

    I'm sure all the police apologists are busy wacking off to that gif right now.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt Disney's Frozen Head View Post
    Not trying to be obtuse but is that really accurate?
    Depends on the management agency and the authorizing body. On public lands the Ranger is usually a Peace Officer, and in almost all cases the law views them as "a law enforcement official." That means that even though they may not be able to arrest you, it is best to cooperate and give truthful information. To do otherwise would be committing a crime (petty offense, misdemeanor, possibly even a felony). Some Boulder Rangers are Post Certified Officers, Jeffco Rangers are not, but have Peace Officer protection (you can't assault them) and are considered law enforcement officials.

    Does that help?

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail View Post
    I did some Googl'ng and the Parks Spokeperson said that the person was
    What really doesn't make sense, and the reason I think she is lying is this;

    If all she wanted to do was "educate" him on off-leash rules, why would she
    ask his name and then call it in to the dispatch to run a background
    check? And even if it came back as a false identitity, why would she
    care? All he was doing was walking his dogs off-leash. BFD.

    .
    First of all we don't know what all went on here - the eyewitness accounts only caught the very bad ending.

    Walking a dog off leash isn't a BFD. That being said, the guy escalated the incident into a BFD by giving a false name. This is urban San Francisco, how the hell do you know the guy is lying about who he is because the ranger is treading on his Constitutional right to walk his dog off leash or he has felony warrants for his arrest? You don’t so your educational chat just turned into a detention until you figure out why the guy is lying. Why even run his name though dispatch you ask? It is good to know if the person you’re talking to has any warrants. When you get pulled over for speeding and given a warning what do you think the cop is doing back there in his car?

    Could the situation been handled differently by the ranger? Of course it could have – the problem is you only assume a good outcome. U.S. Park Rangers are THE most assaulted federal law enforcement group, hands down.

    The ranger who was shot and killed up at Mt. Rainier was pulling the guy over for not stopping at a chain up station. That’s not a BFD either, is it?

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Moustache rider View Post
    You know who the only winner in all of this is?
    Uncle Trail.
    I imagine him sitting in his lair (unfinished basement), looking into his crystal ball (Acer laptop) cackling at what he has created.
    Amen! If you want an accurate account, never go to the media. Maybe he should spend some time working as a cop before he spouts off too much.

    I recall a ranger being killed recently. I don't know the whole story with the tazing, so I'm not going to judge her either way. When an officer stops ANYONE for ANY reason they need to know who they're dealing with. Smile and give them your "papers."
    Last edited by thermos; 02-02-2012 at 08:50 AM.

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Trevk View Post
    First of all we don't know what all went on here - the eyewitness accounts only caught the very bad ending.

    Walking a dog off leash isn't a BFD. That being said, the guy escalated the incident into a BFD by giving a false name. This is urban San Francisco, how the hell do you know the guy is lying about who he is because the ranger is treading on his Constitutional right to walk his dog off leash or he has felony warrants for his arrest? You don’t so your educational chat just turned into a detention until you figure out why the guy is lying. Why even run his name though dispatch you ask? It is good to know if the person you’re talking to has any warrants. When you get pulled over for speeding and given a warning what do you think the cop is doing back there in his car?

    Could the situation been handled differently by the ranger? Of course it could have – the problem is you only assume a good outcome. U.S. Park Rangers are THE most assaulted federal law enforcement group, hands down.

    The ranger who was shot and killed up at Mt. Rainier was pulling the guy over for not stopping at a chain up station. That’s not a BFD either, is it?
    Well said!

  68. #68
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,703
    Quote Originally Posted by Trevk View Post
    First of all we don't know what all went on here - the eyewitness accounts only caught the very bad ending.

    Walking a dog off leash isn't a BFD. That being said, the guy escalated the incident into a BFD by giving a false name. This is urban San Francisco, how the hell do you know the guy is lying about who he is because the ranger is treading on his Constitutional right to walk his dog off leash or he has felony warrants for his arrest? You don’t so your educational chat just turned into a detention until you figure out why the guy is lying. Why even run his name though dispatch you ask? It is good to know if the person you’re talking to has any warrants. When you get pulled over for speeding and given a warning what do you think the cop is doing back there in his car?

    Could the situation been handled differently by the ranger? Of course it could have – the problem is you only assume a good outcome. U.S. Park Rangers are THE most assaulted federal law enforcement group, hands down.

    The ranger who was shot and killed up at Mt. Rainier was pulling the guy over for not stopping at a chain up station. That’s not a BFD either, is it?
    As I said. "quoting the PARKS SPOKESPERSON".... not the media.

    She was "educating" him, not citing him, by her own admission.

    He had no obligation to provide any personal information as he was not under arrest. "Stop and Identify" laws vary state by state however.

    "In states like California and New York, the courts have ruled you can't be busted for balking on ID, said Santa Cruz lawyer Katya Komisaruk, who has practiced in both states and written on the subject.

    Read more: Is refusing to show ID grounds for arrest? Depends on the state - seattlepi.com"

    If he were under arrest for walking his dog off leash then the case would be different. But again, by her own admission she was "educating" him.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,981
    Quote Originally Posted by jackbombay View Post
    I'm sure all the police apologists are busy wacking off to that gif right now.
    "police apologists". LOL.
    So it seems to me to be, this thing that I think I see.

  70. #70
    friend of Apex
    Reputation: WKD-RDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,932
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    Here are four easy steps to get tazered, or maced, by a law officer:
    1) When detained (this means you broke the law) refuse ID
    2) Give false information (the officer is going to radio in your information to confirm it)
    3) Act indignant and belligerent (i.e. berating the officer verbally)
    4) Attempt to leave the scene.

    Which 4 of these did the guy do prior to being tazed? Is he rquired to carry ID? his papers?
    When I walk my dogs off the leash, I usually forgo my wallet ID so a can carry an extra beer. We are not required to have ID when we leave the house.



    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    Personally, I have been in a situation like this. Only, I didn't go past the third step. Luckily for me, the officer who was summonsing me must have had the patience of a saint.
    Or, maybe the officer was doing his job in a professional manner.
    Last edited by WKD-RDR; 02-02-2012 at 12:49 PM. Reason: added another quality wogbie quote
    the drugs made me realize it's not about the drugs

  71. #71
    friend of Apex
    Reputation: WKD-RDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,932
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    He'll only win his lawsuit if people on the jury find in his favor,
    Thanks Captain Oblivious

    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    beyond a reasonable doubt. I'd say there is a lot of reasonable doubt is this situation.

    No, to win in a civil suit you need to show misconduct, which there certainly was. Its not proper procedure to use potentially deadly force on an old dude (in the back) at the park because he's not respectin' yore authoritah.
    the drugs made me realize it's not about the drugs

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by WKD-RDR View Post
    Thanks Captain Oblivious




    No, to win in a civil suit you need to show misconduct, which there certainly was. Its not proper procedure to use potentially deadly force on an old dude (in the back) at the park because he's not respectin' yore authoritah.
    You make way too much sense, get off this thread!

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    Quote Originally Posted by WKD-RDR View Post
    Which 4 of these did the guy do prior to being tazed? Is he rquired to carry ID? his papers?
    When I walk my dogs off the leash, I usually forgo my wallet ID so a can carry an extra beer. We are not required to have ID when we leave the house.
    He broke step 1) when he gave refused to provide an ID (yes, not, necessarily illegal); he broke step 2) when "[He]... allegedly gave the ranger a false name;" step 3) went when he "repeatedly asked the ranger why he was being detained;" and step 4) when he walked away from the ranger.

    You're correct about not having to carry ID in some cases, but giving a false name to a police officer is illegal. If you don't carry ID it is a bad idea to give a false name. Don't believe me? Go try it yourself and see what happens.

    There is a difference between "detained" and "under arrest". Any time a cop stops a person for an offense they are being detained. Walk away from a cop when you are detained and you will get arrested for "disobeying a lawful order." Hence, why when the county sheriff showed up this man gave his real name. I'm assuming at this point the scope of his situation was put into full view.

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    Quote Originally Posted by WKD-RDR View Post
    No, to win in a civil suit you need to show misconduct, which there certainly was. Its not proper procedure to use potentially deadly force on an old dude (in the back) at the park because he's not respectin' yore authoritah.
    Are you forgetting the man's misconduct? If I were the lawyer representing the ranger, it would be pretty easy to point out the fact that had the man given his real name, and took the initial summons (possibly a warning), that he would not have forced the situation to the point it arrived at.

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,981
    <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1fuDDqU6n4o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
    So it seems to me to be, this thing that I think I see.

  76. #76
    friend of Apex
    Reputation: WKD-RDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,932
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    Are you forgetting the man's misconduct?
    Uh, no... We've discussed it. We can continue to talk about how much of a d00sh he is; but he, by all accounts, was in no way confrontational or a threat to her or anyone else.

    The situation did not require the use of a taser. Which is my point, that you continue to evade.
    the drugs made me realize it's not about the drugs

  77. #77
    Motion activated
    Reputation: Steve71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,232
    Just one more reason to own a cat...
    Happiness is a warm 2 stroke.

  78. #78
    MFin' Princess
    Reputation: TVC15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,488
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    Are you forgetting the man's misconduct? If I were the lawyer representing the ranger, it would be pretty easy to point out the fact that had the man given his real name, and took the initial summons (possibly a warning), that he would not have forced the situation to the point it arrived at.
    I'm starting to understand why newspapers are written at a 6th grade level. I can't be the only one.

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail View Post
    She was "educating" him, not citing him, by her own admission.

    If he were under arrest for walking his dog off leash then the case would be different. But again, by her own admission she was "educating" him.
    [/COLOR][/LEFT]
    Education is the lowest level of enforcement, but it is still enforcement. He committed a citable offense and the ranger has every legal justification to confirm the identity of him.

    Next time you get talked to for jaywalking try and not give the cop your real name. Let me know how that goes for you, eh.

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    Quote Originally Posted by WKD-RDR View Post
    Uh, no... We've discussed it. We can continue to talk about how much of a d00sh he is; but he, by all accounts, was in no way confrontational or a threat to her or anyone else.

    The situation did not require the use of a taser. Which is my point, that you continue to evade.
    "By all accounts," you mean one account, right? Or does one witness's account speak for everyone? The ranger's story isn't told, the offender's story isn't told. What if this reporter talked to 50 people who witnessed the incident and cherry picked the one to fit the bent of this story? Why isn't the witness's husband quoted? The gaping holes in this story require large assumptions to fill them in. Assumptions are misinterpreted quite easily. Your assumptions imply the man did nothing wrong and the ranger maliciously shot him with a stun-gun. Those are some steep conclusions to draw. Then you assume the ranger is under qualified to use her weapons. Yet, you never assume it is the man with the "lack of discipline." I would say, giving false information and disobeying a lawful order are indicators of a "lack of discipline." Not to mention walking dogs off-leash in an on-leash area.

    You haven't provided any evidence that the use of a stun-gun was not required. How was the officer supposed to stop this man from disobeying a lawful order? knee-cap him with a baton? shoot him with a live round? tackle him? let him walk away? follow him to his car (where he might have a weapon)? It seems to me, using a taser on this man was the correct thing to do in this situation.

  81. #81
    MFin' Princess
    Reputation: TVC15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,488
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    How was the officer supposed to stop this man from disobeying a lawful order?
    ... annnnnnd there's your problem, cupcake. Issuing a citation for dog off leash NEVER, EVER, EVER ... EVER ... EVER EVER justifies a potentially lethal use of force.

    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie
    It seems to me, using a taser on this man was the correct thing to do in this situation.
    God help us all. You sound like Mitt Romney.

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    Quote Originally Posted by TVC15 View Post
    ... annnnnnd there's your problem, cupcake. Issuing a citation for dog off leash NEVER, EVER, EVER ... EVER ... EVER EVER justifies a potentially lethal use of force.

    God help us all. You sound like Mitt Romney.
    He did not get shot with a stun-gun over the citation for off-leash dogs. He was incapacitated because he disobeyed a lawful order by walking away from the ranger.

    To use your logic, there is "NEVER, EVER, EVER ... EVER ... EVER EVER" justification to walk a dog off-leash in an on-leash area. Also, there is " NEVER, EVER, EVER ... EVER ... EVER EVER" justification for walking (a slow form of running) from an officer who has detained a person.

    Pulling politics into the conversation is a misdirection. I won't acknowledge it further.

  83. #83
    Mobility Now!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    52
    You speak the truth Rogbie and I am glad you are here to do it and keep on doing it because nobody else will because they are to PC. I walk really fast sometimes sometimes way to fast and sometimes I walk kind of slow but I always ride fast and thats what its all about right anyays. Am I right yes I am right becuase this is a bike board did you all forget or something. But never walk or run or do anything away from the cops because its stupid. This is a bike page so everybody just needs to keep on keeping on and remember slow walking is running and nobody is above the law if they where what would we have nothing but chayos. Dude asked for it and dude got it becuase dude asked for it and shouldnt have asked for it.

    Robie for Prez!

    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    He did not get shot with a stun-gun over the citation for off-leash dogs. He was incapacitated because he disobeyed a lawful order by walking away from the ranger.

    To use your logic, there is "NEVER, EVER, EVER ... EVER ... EVER EVER" justification to walk a dog off-leash in an on-leash area. Also, there is " NEVER, EVER, EVER ... EVER ... EVER EVER" justification for walking (a slow form of running) from an officer who has detained a person.

    Pulling politics into the conversation is a misdirection. I won't acknowledge it further.
    Adventure - because I like adventures
    Quest - becuase Im always looking for them

  84. #84
    DWF
    DWF is offline
    Non Dual Bliss
    Reputation: DWF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,240
    I love threads like this. Police are people. Sometimes people are bad. Sometimes they're ******-bags. Sometimes they're intentionally bad and ******-bags. Of course if a cop is bad and a ******-bag and you happen to run across him/her, you're screwed.

    You want to know why people are losing respect for the law? How about because we know so much more about what they do and get away with?

    List of cases of police brutality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Make sure you read the Colorado section.

    Rampart scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    2011 Worst Police Misconduct Video of the Year Reader’s Poll « Injustice Everywhere

    30 Cases of Extreme Police Brutality and Blatant Misconduct

    The Worst Police Misconduct Videos of 2010 « Injustice Everywhere

    Worst Police Misconduct Videos of 2009 « Injustice Everywhere

    Hell, just get on youtube and spend the next few days watching these:

    police brutality - YouTube

    police misconduct - YouTube
    A man must have enemies and places he is not welcome. In the end we are not only defined by our friends but those against us.

  85. #85
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,703
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    He did not get shot with a stun-gun over the citation for off-leash dogs. He was incapacitated because he disobeyed a lawful order by walking away from the ranger.

    To use your logic, there is "NEVER, EVER, EVER ... EVER ... EVER EVER" justification to walk a dog off-leash in an on-leash area. Also, there is " NEVER, EVER, EVER ... EVER ... EVER EVER" justification for walking (a slow form of running) from an officer who has detained a person.

    It's a question of excessive use of force, not disobeying an order.

    Using your logic it's ok to whack someone in the head with a baseball bat
    because they won't listen to you.

    Just because she's a LEO, doesn't giver her the right to resort to violence
    in a non-violent situation.

  86. #86
    DWF
    DWF is offline
    Non Dual Bliss
    Reputation: DWF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,240
    Awesome reputation received from an anonymous ******-bag: "You are truly a ****ing *******. No respect for the people who protect us = no respect for yourself."

    Here's a message for you, anonymous bootlicker: Respect is earned not given, which means a ******-bag with a badge is still a ******-bag and he hasn't earned nor deserves my respect. Go back and read all those factual accounts of innocent citizens being beaten and murdered by "the people who protect us."

    I consider the police the same way I do politicians, with mindful distrust and wariness until they have PROVEN themselves to deserve otherwise. Of course it's unlikely a politician would murder me with intent or otherwise so they have that in their favor.
    A man must have enemies and places he is not welcome. In the end we are not only defined by our friends but those against us.

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail View Post
    It's a question of excessive use of force, not disobeying an order.

    Using your logic it's ok to whack someone in the head with a baseball bat
    because they won't listen to you.

    Just because she's a LEO, doesn't giver her the right to resort to violence
    in a non-violent situation.
    I disagree. The use of force, in this situation, is a function of disobeying an order. Was the force excessive? Possibly. However, it is far less dangerous than drawing a live weapon on a suspect, or using physical tactics.

    This is an example of police brutality (excessive force):



    The incident with from the article is an example of use of force to detain a person fleeing a lawful order.

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    Quote Originally Posted by DWF View Post
    I consider the police the same way I do politicians, with mindful distrust and wariness until they have PROVEN themselves to deserve otherwise. Of course it's unlikely a politician would murder me with intent or otherwise so they have that in their favor.
    I feel the same way. Except, politicians are more litigious about their intent to harm.

    Which, is why, I am pointing out that interactions with the police (or politicians) should be handled with tact and courtesy.

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    I disagree. The use of force, in this situation, is a function of disobeying an order. Was the force excessive? Possibly. However, it is far less dangerous than drawing a live weapon on a suspect, or using physical tactics.

    This is an example of police brutality (excessive force):



    The incident with from the article is an example of use of force to detain a person fleeing a lawful order.
    Let me guess, that's you after gettin lickered up on whiskey and stopping to take a piss in the alley. The officer took offense and hence, you got the s**t kicked out of you. That will teach you to piss on the street.

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    Quote Originally Posted by brokefork View Post
    Let me guess, that's you after gettin lickered up on whiskey and stopping to take a piss in the alley. The officer took offense and hence, you got the s**t kicked out of you. That will teach you to piss on the street.
    You statements are always so insightful and well thought out.

  91. #91
    friend of Apex
    Reputation: WKD-RDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,932
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    Those are some steep conclusions to draw.......snip, yawn.........It seems to me, using a taser on this man was the correct thing to do in this situation.
    So you say there is not enough evidence for me to draw my conclusion of misconduct, but you make your own. Nice hypocrisy, Stabone


    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    Was the force excessive? Possibly.
    Man, you sound as wishy-washy as Mitt Romney
    the drugs made me realize it's not about the drugs

  92. #92
    A guy on a bike Moderator
    Reputation: TobyGadd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    953
    If the guy had just owned up to breaking the law, given his real name, and waited while the ranger verified his ID and issued him a ticket, all would have ended well. Been there, done that!

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    Quote Originally Posted by WKD-RDR View Post
    So you say there is not enough evidence for me to draw my conclusion of misconduct, but you make your own. Nice hypocrisy, Stabone
    That's because your conclusions imply a prejudice that any use of force by a police officer is misconduct.

    And, yet again, you're trying to misdirect the argument to personal attacks. This further weakens any statement you make.

  94. #94
    friend of Apex
    Reputation: WKD-RDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,932
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    That's because your conclusions imply a prejudice that any use of force by a police officer is misconduct.
    Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt, wrong (again). Where did I say or imply this? I said this situation did not require a taser. Not sure how much more clear I can be.
    You're either an complete idiot, or a being a sly troll. I'm guessing the former.


    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    And, yet again, you're trying to misdirect the argument to personal attacks. This further weakens any statement you make.
    My argument has been the same, no misdirection, and strong as all hell.

    Quote Originally Posted by WKD-RDR View Post
    The situation did not require the use of a taser.

    the drugs made me realize it's not about the drugs

  95. #95
    not actually bad :)
    Reputation: bad_andy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,762
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    This further weakens any statement you make.
    All WKD's statements (as well as the dood himself) are weak - trust me on this one.
    Old Codger

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    I feel the same way. Except, politicians are more litigious about their intent to harm.

    Which, is why, I am pointing out that interactions with the police (or politicians) should be handled with tact and courtesy.
    Come on rOOby, you really need to lighten up, have a drink bud. BTW, was that you in the pic? Hope you healed up ok.

  97. #97
    ..ouch
    Reputation: thump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,028
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    Which, is why, I am pointing out that police should interact with the public they're hired to serve with tact and courtesy.
    Fixed that for ya.

  98. #98
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,703
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    I disagree. The use of force, in this situation, is a function of disobeying an order. Was the force excessive? Possibly. However, it is far less dangerous than drawing a live weapon on a suspect, or using physical tactics.

    This is an example of police brutality (excessive force)
    The incident with from the article is an example of use of force to detain a person fleeing a lawful order.
    So I guess it"s ok for Barrack Obama to supply a fake birth certificate to America. But let a citizen give a fake name while walking his dog off leash ..... and violence is acceptable.... is this still America? I really wonder.

  99. #99
    ..ouch
    Reputation: thump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,028
    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail View Post
    So I guess it"s ok for Barrack Obama to supply a fake birth certificate to America.
    oh fack.. really?

  100. #100
    DWF
    DWF is offline
    Non Dual Bliss
    Reputation: DWF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,240
    Quote Originally Posted by thump View Post
    oh fack.. really?
    Some people you just can't reach...and why would you want to?
    A man must have enemies and places he is not welcome. In the end we are not only defined by our friends but those against us.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •