I too am a VICTIM OF NPS Ranger Misconduct. I am disabled for life as a result. There are many others whom the Rangers have needlessly injured. I have boxes of evidence of their malfeasance and have detailed court and other records, CHP pursuit, and an audio recording that is a real eye opener where they clearly abuse their legal authority an endangerd hundreds of citizens.

NPS Rangers think they are Federal Secret Police that answer to no one. They even have the local Law Enforcement Agencies Believing this. NPS Rangers seemingly Comply or Die Policy is very active. More then one individual has been killed trying to leave the scene of petty infractions. Josh Updegraff’s Mother can attest to one such incident: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_07173e8a-b096-11df-a8bb-0017a4a78c22.html

Richard Greenberg is in prison because he parked a car in Whiskeytown National Park where people do not normally park, but there was no sign to “keep out”. The Whiskeytown Rangers got overly aggressive and initiated an illegal pursuit, breaking several State and Federal Laws. There was no probable cause, and nowhere close to anything requiring that level of use of force on him or endangering the public with a high speed pursuit on a cold, rainy day. I have all of the reports and court papers on this case.

In my case, I was denied medical attention, my truck was stolen and my girlfriend kidnapped by a park ranger named Gary Panich. To cover this up, Ranger Mike Martin made up lies, told them to other agency personnel as well an insurance adjusters, my finance company and my Attorney. He then had the local police storm my house, terrorizing my family, and arrested me (for a boating accident). I was incarcerated without a charge for several months. This happened in 2003 because of a boating accident where I was tested and proved that I was not under the influence of anything.

Recently, an Investigator out of the Bay area, Jeff Wasserman, (Cell phone number 415-559-834) was appointed by NPS Director Jon Jarvis to look into the Greenberg case as well as mine. As of this writing, he has not offered any relief to Greenberg or myself, nor has he disciplined the Park Rangers involved. He had the opportunity to correct the internal policies of Park Rangers who abuse their limited authority and to prevent things like tasing someone for minor infractions like having a dog off a leash. Just like Ranger Cavallaro did. I have not heard any news reports stating Ranger Cavallaro had a ticket book or even wrote a ticket. When ranger Cavallaro detained Hesterberg, it was an arrest. She should have advised Hesterberg of this or whatever her intentions were. But again, she, like other NPS Rangers, act like Secret Police and feel they can detain anyone without explanation or accountability.

Jeff Wasserman talked a good game about Greenberg’s case and mine, but I have not seen any results besides being accused of intentionally driving my new boat (that I loved dearly and worked hard to obtain) into a pole. His alleged “internal investigation” should have produced immediate changes to NPS Law Enforcement Policy. I have included his cell phone number so you can call him and tell him how you feel about Blatant and Obvious misconduct by National Park Service Law Enforcement Rangers.

To be fair, non-law enforcement park rangers are really cool people. Something happens when they are given guns and virtually No Law Enforcement Training like all other agencies must complete, to become Professional Peace Officers.

National Park Service Law Enforcement Rangers are normally required to Carry a 1 or 2 Million Dollar Professional Liability Insurance Policy (paid mostly by your tax dollars). I encourage Hesterberg or any of the witnesses who were affected by this appalling event to Sue Ranger Sarah Cavallaro in Federal Court as an individual under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and pursuant to the decision in Bivins v. Six Unknown Agents for the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 338 (1971) for damages, actual and punitive.

Had I done this to another citizen the same way the Rangers did to me, I would be in prison for a long, long time. The Federal Courts are the answer to agencies that have unconstitutional policies and practices and refuse to correct or even acknowledge them.
I expect my door will be kicked in for writing this and more false charges filed against me. I really don’t care because I live in poverty and can longer perform a job because of my injuries. My hope is that my message gets out there so these things will not ever happen again to another citizen.

My email address is jnickerson530@gmail.com. Contact me if you want to see court documents, Ranger Reports, affidavits or the Greenberg audio pursuit file emailed back. I welcome any Attorneys or News Media that would assist me in suing the park rangers for my or the Greenberg incidents or to perform an in depth investigation into NPS misconduct. I’ve often wonder why NPS Rangers become Law Enforcement Agents instead of Peace Officers, and by their actions it is my opinion they would probably fail the psych evaluation for real Peace Officer type Agencies.

Thank you for your time…

Yes he gave a false name. He didn’t have ID which most people don’t have in a state or national park. It is a little white lie. One does not have to make the leap that he is a murderer planning to disappear into the depths of nature. He did not have a 50 pound backpack filled with food and water and a tent. He had little dogs with him. It is not summertime. The temperatures get cold at night in late Jan. He was not a strapping young man of 20. Polly Klaas had not just been kidnapped by a man with salt and pepper hair.There was not an all points bulletin for an older man with salt and pepper hair. He may have been trying to avoid the financial fine. Government is getting more and more into charging fees and fining for anything they can think of, like the federal attempt to charge for surfing in Monterey off a specific federal place. It appears nothing went through Sarah’s alleged mind, other than “I’ve been dissed, and this is a criminal.” We have an animal mind, and we have the mind of the advanced human being. She has gotten into the habit of operating from her animal mind. She thinks like an alligator. She has not practiced using her mind to control her animal brain. This is not a person who should have weapons available to her. People who know her probably know to avoid her. But here we have the public who doesn’t know her. She is not wearing some sort of vest, like a black and yellow striped one, to announce “high alert, this is a dangerous, crazy woman.” In nature, dangerous animals usually have the coloring of stripes to send the signal of danger, like wasps, and poisonous snakes. After booking Gary, they released him. Boy he sure sounds like a dangerous criminal – not.

On traffic lights we have a green light, we have a yellow light, we have a blinking red light, we have a red light. She operates on red light alert only. She is explosive. She is like a bomb that is ticking that is getting down to the last 5 seconds before explosion. She is like the air raid siren going off that bombs are about to fall.

She is a woman.Maybe she has children. If so, I feel badly that children have to be raised with a woman like this.

I personally try to avoid people who I have determined are crazy and dangerous. She falls into that category. I think Gary decided that too. For those of you who are sympathetic to Sarah and say you would do the same thing in her shoes, I don’t trust you either, and don’t want to see you with a gun nor a taser nor pepper spray. I don’t even want to see you behind the wheel of a car. For those of you who don’t think much of this story, please note that it got picked up nationally. There is a reason stories get picked up nationally. That is because it is not business as usual. If Sarah’s boss does not get that message, we should make sure he does get it.

Sarah also does not understand that her salary is being paid for by taxpaying citizens, like Gary.

I hope the majority of Americans agree with me. Since we live in the US in 2012 and not in the part of Afghanistan that is run by the authoritarian Taliban we are not accustomed to being treated like this. If we want to keep the US like the US we know,we have to object when someone acts macho behind a badge like this. We do not yet live in a police state, and we need to be invested in keeping it that way. The US is special. Let’s keep it that way. The citizens have to continue to act civilly and and to raise children to act civilly, and the authorities have to control the impulse to authoritarianism. Arrogance and pomposity are weaknesses that need to be combated within an individual.

In the future give your real name and number and address. Rangers didn’t use to have cellular phones that they could call and be in contact with a big computer and other officers and now they do, so the citizenry has to adapt.
I also did not know that park rangers carried deadly force, like guns with license to use them. I hope that people in control of training and certification are aware of this and have adjusted. Perhaps the weeding out process for hiring has to be closer to that used by the police. Both the police and the army reject people who do not pass psychological tests.

Someone who is wacked out is out of wack, which means “out of order, alignment, not in proper condition”. Her name is Sarah.

The parks are supposed to be a cheap, inexpensive, low key, way to destress and get away from the stress and rush of cars and crowds and computers especially in a bad economy. When I lived in San Francisco, I walked the trail at GGNRA Tennessee Valley Trail in the Marin headlands several times each weekend and loved it.

People in state/national parks rarely encounter a wild animal. Now Sarah’s contribution is that people have to be more afraid of the park ranger than of wild animals.

“That was tried and it failed.” And why did it fail? Because Park Ranger My Penis Is Bigger Than Yours was trying to detain a citizen without explanation. It failed because . . . she didn’t have proper training on how to handle the situation.

Also, I didn’t say she tased him for having the dog off the leash. I said she tased him because she thought she was disrespected, didn’t know how to handle the situation and overreacted.

“The situation could have and should have been resolved with nothing more dangerous than words.”

That was tried and it failed. She told him not to leave several times, but he tried to leave anyway. Initially, the leash law violation was the Probable Cause to stop him and speak to him, At the point where he gave her the fake name, his status changed from an innocent dog walker to a suspect under detention, and he was no longer free to go. At that point the leash violation was simply the precursor, and it had nothing at all to do with the deployment of the Taser. So it would be helpful if people would stop saying that she tased him for having his dog off leash.

It will be interesting to see what happpens with Mr. Hesterberg. He doesn’t look very happy in his booking photo, but also he doesn’t look like a frail heart patient about to expire. Apparently his ride with Mr. Taser wasn’t lethal, and I suspect that his status as a “heart patient” was just another lie.

http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/235759/58/Park-ranger-tases-man-walking-dogs-off-leash

Also, stun guns can ignite flammable liquids, and possibly flammable material.

Here is a blurb on the 9′th Court opinions on the use of tasers – sad. In one, in a domestic dispute case, the wife “said something about the need to defuse the situation. The officer responded by tasing” her. They held that the officers had overstepped, but gave them immunity. http://volokh.com/2011/10/17/tasers-and-the-fourth-amendment-now-headed-to-the-supreme-court/ “En Banc Ninth Circuit on When Using a Taser to Subdue A Suspect Counts as “Excessive Force” Under the Fourth Amendment” by Orin Kerr

Actually I think leaving it to the discretion of the officer is the best thing, but the caveat is that the officer has to have good judgment. Having an officer make stupid decisions is what leads to policies that are bad in the long run for the safety of the public, the safety of the officers, and for the company that makes tasers.

———————-

BTW, talking about overreach by the government “Amendments to FERPA regulations (under the now misnomer Family Educational and Privacy Rights Act ) effective January 8, 2009, and affected by the Patriot Act, and No Child Left Behind, add “biometric record” as a personal identifier. Examples of biometric records include fingerprints, retina and iris patterns, voice prints, DNA sequences, facial characteristics and handwriting. ” as part of student records, k-12 plus colleges and universities; with some good pointers for parents and students. https://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs29-education.htm
In case you don’t know what that means, it means the government is setting the stage for a national DNA bank of records on citizens, who have not committed crimes. They can collect your child’s DNA in kindergarten. In case any crimes are committed during his lifetime they could have computers searching the records for a match. Law enforcement and grand juries can have access to the records with subpoenas.DNA is not equal to 100% clarity as you might imagine. The security of these records, DNA, medical, psychiatric,opinions by teachers, grades, campus security records, will be as secure as what? sealed divorce papers, splashed across newspapers? Life in America is getting very sci-fi’ish.

What is written at that site is that basically the policy is that everything is at the rangers discretion and judgment, given the situation.

Referring to other cases in the US regarding tasers, for travelling 12 miles over the speed limit, a police officer in Seattle Washington tased a pregnant woman. The Appeals court ruled that that officer went too far.That was the Federal 9′th Circuit Court of Appeals.

As he lay on the ground on his back and incapable of moving, she was yelling at him to turn over.

When he could speak while still lying on the ground after being tased he was shouting to passers-by, asking someone to take his dogs home. His first thought was for the well being of his little dogs.

He has a lawyer who told him not to speak about it.

From your cite: “While the above review suggests CEDs are relatively safe when used on healthy at-rest and physiologically stressed subjects, medical researchers caution that CEDs are not risk free (National Institute of Justice, 2008; Vilke & Chan, 2007). Strote & Hutson (2008), for example, point out that CEDs may cause physiologic and metabolic changes that are clinically insignificant in healthy individuals but that could be harmful or even life-threatening in at-risk populations (e.g., obese subjects with heart disease and/or intoxicated on drugs who struggle with police). Additional concerns have been raised regarding secondary injuries and deaths associated with CED exposure. For instance, there have been at least six deaths due to head injuries suffered during falls following CED exposure (Kroll, Calkins, Luceri, Graham, & Heegaard, 2008a).” [emphasis added]

Risk is risk and tortfeasors take their victims as they find them.

I’m glad you think an officer is showing good judgement in tasering someone after being informed that person has a heart condition. I also think your criteria for good judgment and mine must be substantially different. To me, violence over a code violation and the risk of incurring legal liability just doesn’t pass muster as good judgement in a situation where there was no indication of imminent harm to anybody. The situation could have and should have been resolved with nothing more dangerous than words.

There have not been a large number of “Taser deaths.” Some people take the Amnesty International report at face value, but it’s deceptive, and the same goes for the Wikipedia entry. Let me explain what I said in a different way: “Everyone who is shot with a Taser will die.” That makes the Taser sound lethal doesn’t it? Well, it is also true that everyone who eats a banana will die. Ban the banana! Also, everyone who drinks milk in the state of Nebraska will die too. What’s in that Nebraska milk, anyway? The reason we can say all that stuff is because everyone who was ever born is going to die. There are many events that happen along the way that can’t be blamed for the person’s death, though. Amnesty International is gleefully pulling the wool over people’s eyes when they relate the story of 1) guy gets shot with Taser, 2) guy dies later, so therefore 3) Taser must have caused the death. The question we need to be asking is not how many people die after being shot with a Taser, because the answer to that question is “everyone does.” The right question is how many people die BECAUSE OF being shot with a Taser. It looks like the answer to that question is “a very small minority, if any.”

Back in 1995, the ACLU made the accusation that the OC spray (pepper spray) the police were using was causing people to die. This ridiculous allegation was investigated and discovered to be a fabrication. The same result shows up when you examine people who died soon after being shot with a Taser. This report talls the Taser a Conducted Energy Device (CED):

“Kornblum and Reddy (1991) examined 16 CED-related deaths and reported that in all cases the subjects were behaving in a bizarre or unusual manner and that13 were under the influence of drugs (cocaine, PCP or amphetamine). According to their analysis, death was caused by drug overdoses in 11 cases (68.8%), gunshot wounds in three, an undetermined cause in one, and heart disease plus CED shock on one case. They concluded that the CEDs in and of themselves did not cause death, though a CED exposure may have contributed to one death (Note, however, that in addition to heart disease, this subject had lethal levels of PCP in his system).”

“In a review of 37 CED-related deaths, Strote and Hutson (2006) found that autopsy reports indicated 20 (54.1%) of the subjects had cardiovascular disease, 29 (78.4%) were under the influence of illegal drugs (primarily stimulants), 28 (75.7%) were given a diagnoses of excited delirium, and 29 (78.4%) of the subjects were restrained by police in some manner. Medical examiners reported CEDs were a possible cause of death in six cases (16.2%) and were a contributory cause in four (10.8%). The authors concluded that a common factor in the deaths was extreme agitation, often accompanied by stimulant drug use and/or preexisting heart disease. Importantly, they note that fatal encounters in which CEDs are used involve subjects already at risk for sudden death from other causes.”

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/231176.pdf

So the normal healthy guy out walking his dogs in the park isn’t going to die when the cop hits him with the Taser probes. I know this firsthand, because I got to take a ride with Mr. Taser too. Taser International headquarters is just a few miles from my house, and I volunteered to be in their research program. They put me on my back on a wrestling mat and hooked me up to the wires, then hit me with the voltage from their new (at the time) shotgun round. The current was traveling between my left shoulder and my left hip, and it was very effective at immobilizing me. They kept it on for 15 seconds rather than the normal 5 seconds, but as soon as they turned it off I was able to sit up and stand up with no ill effects other than a slight muscle fatigue. I thought it would be something like the shock treatment in “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” but it wasn’t even close.

The report also talks about why the Taser is a good thing in terms of preventing injuries. When the suspect isn’t complying with the officer’s commands, and the officer has to lay his hands on the suspect, usually one or both of them is going to get hurt. It could be a career-ending injury for the officer or a litigation-worthy injury for the suspect. Also, the officer has to get really close to the suspect to grab him, and if the suspect has any special skills like martial arts training, he could end up with the officer’s gun in his hand. If the two are evenly matched or the suspect is stronger, during a long fight there will come a time when the exhausted officer realizes he has lost the fight and is at the mercy of the suspect, and the only defense he has left is deadly force – his firearm. The Taser fills the gap between pepper spray and a hollow point pistol round. It’s the closest thing we have to a Star Trek phaser set on stun. The ranger was right to use her Taser in this situation, and I hope the Park Service backs her up.

“Walking away is the antithesis of being a threat.”

What more can be said; especially given that the infraction was two small dogs off leash.

I am not a great supporter of off leash dogs because I worry about the birds, the rabbits, and small mammals, however even given that, what they did to him was stunningly stupid.

Also I am skeptical of people crying about the birds and the rabbits when the latest fad in parks is to pour concrete over it so that speed bikers can pedal pedal pedal and be a danger not only to birds, rabbits and small mammals but to humans, (adults, children and the elderly), as well.

Someone on this website said that one assumes that everyone is a rapist until their name is found in records and they are clear. That is a ridiculous assumption. Assuming that an older man walking 2 small dogs in a national park is a rapist is not an American thought. That happens to be a French thought. However that is the direction the USA is going, what with Homeland Security deciding to stop cars in case they are carrying a terrorist bomb with no cause whatsoever, and refusing to profile who they might be looking for. They refuse to name the enemy, and then assume that every citizen might be the enemy. If that was on the ranger’s mind, then she is paranoid.

We could keep going with that assumption. The little chihuahua is actually a killer chihuahua. Shoot now. Ask questions later. The person putting white powder from a little blue or pink or green package into their coffee with cream in a diner could actually be destroying the evidence in a drug case. The woman with 30 children in a school could be a kidnapper, how else to explain the unnatural number of children? If anyone is lacking a sense of humor I am being sarcastic. Context is part of understanding a situation. That is where “common sense” comes in.

The comments at SFGate who originally reported the story were cute. Since she was trying to “educate” Gary. They ask ” if using a taser is part of education, why don’t teachers have tasers?” Maybe the Monterey Aquarium is missing something considering the number of families it “educates” about fish yearly. Another commenter said there is a shortage of park rangers in the Arctic to count polar bears. Another news report, about Rep. Jackie Speier who is taking an interest in the matter, says the ranger is still at her job, in which case I say “Avoid that park”. She belongs in the same category as the post Thanksgiving shopper who pepper- sprayed fellow customers because they wanted to buy the same Christmas gift she wanted to buy.

Any officer who uses a Taser should be aware of the simple fact the Taser is a potentially lethal weapon and any use of the Taser could result in death. I teach young officers that once you use deadly force and kill someone, be prepared for the fact that life will never be the same again. Once you kill someone, you are changed forever, and unless you are a psychopath, the change is never for the better.

Age is relative. A lot depends on how you act and think. People refuse to believe me when I tell them my age. No one ever calls me an old man. Heh.

It would be interesting to find out why people think Mr. Hesterberg is an “old man.” He is 50 years old.

lethal \ˈlē-thəl\, adj.,

1a : of, relating to, or causing death
b : capable of causing death

Someone dead. Lethal.

No one dead. Not lethal.

Less than lethal does not mean non-lethal.

It’s a hobby.

**************

Eric,

Or since this was a new ordinance, my little brown shirt, she could have given him a warning instead of escalating the situation into a physical assault and turning a small fine into expensive litigation. She lost or never had control of the situation to begin with. She had other options than the taser.

According to the National Organization for Random Statistics, 166,412 people in the United States died after drinking milk. While the ACLU statistic may be true, it doesn’t mean that tasers are lethal. They aren’t.

Actually, in a way they do if what they witness contradicts the official story. Their testimony of the event is relevant to the charges brought before a judge and/or jury and it is up to them to decide the probative value and veracity of said testimony.

“we appoint law enforcement to be trained to know when to use a taser.”

Or not. Rep. Jackie Speier has called for an independent investigation into the training PR’s get in re taser use.

““If she can’t handle confrontation…” Assuming that she is an average size female and he is an average size male, he is likely larger than her. With the situation already drawing a crowd and no back-up was she to attempt to wrestle this man to the ground because he had already broken 3 laws (not including the off the leash policy), one of them leaving a scene?”

This begs the question that violence is the only way to defuse a confrontation. As to the size issue, with proper training, size is not a determinative issue in a physical confrontation.

“Gene – it never states anywhere that he was given a citation.”

True. I misread a post by another relaying another eye witness account of the event and mispoke. He was, however, cited when arrested. Still, my bad.

“And fleeing a scene after giving false information to a law enforcement official may not be a threat to her, but it is still breaking 2 seperate laws and how was she to know he was not attempting to leave because he had an outstanding warrent?”

This is a presumption of guilt. We are still presumed innocent in this country until proven so in a court of law, not on the suspicion of Park Rangers.

“Witnesses have also said he was being very rude and defiant.”

So what? Not illegal.

“Funny how you choose to believe the accounts you want and dismiss the others. If the Ranger was to give her side of the story would you dismiss it just as quickly because you have already decided what is truth and what is not?”

I haven’t heard the Ranger’s account. I consider all evidence, but I cannot consider evidence I do not have. However, given the Ranger’s vested interest in keeping her job and avoiding a lawsuit, I would weigh her testimony in that light when compared to the testimony of witnesses who have no vested interest.

“Another thing, a taser is not deadly force.”

When something kills someone, even if it is considered a “less than lethal weapon”, it is deadly force. According to Amnesty International, between 2001 and 2008 a total of 351 people in the United States died after being shocked by police tasers. Amnesty International has also called on U.S. law enforcement departments to cease using the weapons, pending further safety studies, or to strictly limit their use to a weapon of last resort. A bean bag round is considered “less than lethal”, yet they can kill too if they hit someone just right. Same goes with rubber bullets.

“If he was so worried abolut his heart when she pulled the taser he should have stopped walking and complied with the officers request, none of which were unreasonable.”

I would call attempting to detain a citizen without explanation unreasonable.

“Instead he chose to be defiant and unrespective of her requests and walk away. He got his warning, he chose the outcome.”

Actually, nowhere does it say he got a warning. Hesterberg told the ranger not to stun him because he had a heart condition before he turned to walk away, according to witness and official accounts. He was then simply tasered in the back as he walked away according to witnesses. But don’t let that stop your rationalization.

“Let’s put you in this situation: You have asked a citizen to do something, he eventually complies, but he is rude and confrontational.”

No impact on me. I don’t care if people are rude and/or confrontational.

“While attempting to verify his identity (which ends up being false, broken law #1),”

“he walks away (broken law #2 and #3)”

“and will not comply with your requests even after warned of possible use of a taser.”

Again, no evidence that a warning was issued. In this situation, I have a radio on my hip. I’m using it already. I follow him and call for backup.

Or . . .

I react like a sane person. I let it be and take up the issue with my superiors about better posting the park policies so challenge is less of an issue moving forward. It’s a code violation. It’s not like he was raping and pillaging his way through the park. But what I don’t do is taser the guy who just told me expressly he has a heart condition. Do you realize how much shit this Park Ranger (and her department) would be in if that shock had killed him? Over a code violation? I don’t think you do. His survivors would be looking at a very valid wrongful death suit and those can be very expensive. As it is now, the cost of future litigation (and there will be litigation) far surpasses the revenue generated by the fine.

It was an overreaction.

She couldn’t. She would have been derelict in her duty to let him walk.

From the California Penal Code:

148.9 (a) Any person who falsely represents or identifies himself or herself as another person or as a fictitious person to any peace officer listed in Section 830.1 or 830.2, or subdivision (a) of Section 830.33, upon a lawful detention or arrest of the person, either to evade the process of the court, or to evade the proper identification of the person by the investigating officer is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(b) Any person who falsely represents or identifies himself or herself as another person or as a fictitious person to any other peace officer defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, upon lawful detention or arrest of the person, either to evade the process of the court, or to evade the proper identification of the person by the arresting officer is guilty of a misdemeanor if (1) the false information is given while the peace officer is engaged in the performance of his or her duties as a peace officer and (2) the person providing the false information knows or should have known that the person receiving the information is a peace officer.

148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

What you keep consistently ignoring is that the Ranger *was* trying to issue him a citation but he refused to cooperate. He gave a false name. He now has two offenses: violating the leash law, and lying to a Police officer. When she detains him to query further, he decides to leave without being released. Now he has committed his third violation. These were the charges he was charged with by the Ranger.

Your inability to admit this is indictive of your political agenda, or your inability to follow facts.

Why is a lawyer like a nuclear weapon? Because when they land nothing functions hundreds of years.

I like the part where the narrator says “ewe they are so nasty.” Yep. Scavengers will eat pretty much most anything, including rotting dead animals.

“Witnesses said the use of a stun gun and the arrest seemed excessive…” Random witnesses don’t get to make this call, we appoint law enforcement to be trained to know when to use a taser.

It has also been said in other articles that he had given a false name, that being the reason he was being detained. She was attempting to confirm his identity, he did not feel like waiting, too bad for him.

“If she can’t handle confrontation…” Assuming that she is an average size female and he is an average size male, he is likely larger than her. With the situation already drawing a crowd and no back-up was she to attempt to wrestle this man to the ground because he had already broken 3 laws (not including the off the leash policy), one of them leaving a scene?

Gene – it never states anywhere that he was given a citation. And fleeing a scene after giving false information to a law enforcement official may not be a threat to her, but it is still breaking 2 seperate laws and how was she to know he was not attempting to leave because he had an outstanding warrent? Witnesses have also said he was being very rude and defiant. Funny how you choose to believe the accounts you want and dismiss the others. If the Ranger was to give her side of the story would you dismiss it just as quickly because you have already decided what is truth and what is not?

Another thing, a taser is not deadly force. If he was so worried abolut his heart when she pulled the taser he should have stopped walking and complied with the officers request, none of which were unreasonable. Instead he chose to be defiant and unrespective of her requests and walk away. He got his warning, he chose the outcome.

Let’s put you in this situation: You have asked a citizen to do something, he eventually complies, but he is rude and confrontational. While attempting to verify his identity (which ends up being false, broken law #1), he walks away (broken law #2 and #3) and will not comply with your requests even after warned of possible use of a taser. What is your next move? Let a man after breaking 3 laws, with unconfirmed identity, just walk away?

“To defend others” – Neither was anyone else in danger.

“To effect an arrest” – Issuing a ticket for a code violation is the appropriate response, not arrest. This clause is irrelevant to the fact pattern.

“To restrain or control violent,” – The only violent person here was the Park Ranger. She tasered an old man in the back. This clause is irrelevant to the fact pattern.

“threatening,” – The only threats made were threats to detain by the Park Ranger with no reason given when asked. Why? So she could show her author-it-tie. This clause is irrelevant to the fact pattern.

“or resistive behavior,” – The citation was issued. The essential legal transaction was complete. Resistance isn’t the issue. Disrespect and escalation are the issue and it was the Park Ranger who crossed the line.

“or to disperse an unlawful group” – Not applicable to the situation.

Thanks for the ammo.

Also, because a statement is incomplete does not mean it is false, merely incomplete. What I said was factual and there was no lie by omission, merely omission.

“It was to expose his prejuidice and ill logical reasoning.”

Good luck with that. Because so far the only thing you’ve exposed is your willingness to be an unquestioning authoritarian and a capacity for contradiction, moving the goal posts, making false equivalences, and equivocating. I have a history here and none of it lends itself to proving either that I’m prejudiced or illogical (I even know how to spell it).

However, I do have some things I’m prejudiced about.

I will stipulate I am prejudiced, but it’s just not LE I’m prejudiced against.

It’s mainly authoritarians and morons I’m prejudiced against. I’m not crazy about bootlickers either. Or people who would gladly violate the rights of others simply to assuage their ego. Or violent people in general. Or people who trample the Constitution and the principles found in the Declaration of Independence. I also don’t like the color yellow. You’ll just have to deal with that. As far as belittling you? No, you made yourself look unimportant. What I’ve done is ridicule you. Why? Because you’re ridiculous. You went hard ridiculous the instant you tried to equate the stress of warfare to the stress of LE work.

See, Eric, your problem here is you’re a wannabe. You wanted to be a cop, you wanted to have authority, but you didn’t get any. You’ll sure will jump to the defense of one though if it looks like their authority was questioned! You wanted to be a martial artist, but you don’t have the basic knowledge any serious martial arts student should have. Hell, you didn’t even know the difference between controlling, injuring and lethal techniques and that’s something you’re supposed to learn pretty much Day One. You wanted to prove you were right to defend the overreaction of someone with a badge, but you haven’t. What you’ve proven is that without a doubt you are an authoritarian who will go to great lengths to rationalize your stance rather than face the uncomfortable possibility that upon critical examination of your belief you might find out that it is wrong. You wanted to win an argument, but you haven’t. Even when you “bring the facts” as above, you haven’t won once. You want to be taken seriously, but you aren’t. That’s just the way this cookie crumbles.

You are entitled to your opinion and to express it, however, you are not entitled to have that opinion exposed to critical thought and you’re not free from ridicule when you say something ridiculous. That’s the beauty of free speech.

Also, I’m the only person in my family to ever go to graduate school let alone law school, my parents didn’t pay for my education and they have no connection with where I went to school other than I went there. I also didn’t finish at the bottom of my class. You, however, clearly have a problem with lawyers.

And let me start you off with a good lawyer joke:

What’s black and brown and looks good on an attorney?

A rottweiler.

There is also an alternative answer.

Vanessa Williams.

I like dogs, but personally, I’d prefer Ms. Williams.

Just like I like LEOs, but I’d prefer that they not brutalize citizens to make themselves feel better when they think they’ve been disrespected.

Now what was that you saying about illogic and prejudice?

***************
OS,

Thanks! I love me some Honey Badgers.

My goal is not to outlast him. It was to expose his prejuidice and ill logical reasoning.

Tier One means nothing. It simply means he was a heritage student the school accepts so daddy can write out those big checks. Tier One schools consistenty turn out the worst students because if they fail, daddy won’t write that check. Asfter they graduate they get those sweet jobs because of their family “connections” and not have to actually qualify for. His grasp of logic and ability to carry an argument forward is weak. What he has done is try to belittle me on a consistent basis. One does not have to outlast the blowhard lawyer, that’s why we have judges and a jury. Somebody has to graduate at the bottom of the class.

Gimme a break. Lawyers are the scum of the earth for a good reason. They are much better liers than cops will ever be, and they get paid a whole lot more . In fact I do believe lawyers are even more hated than the low paid security officer.

A taste of your own medicine.

I am going to have to google lawyer jokes and have me a good laugh.

Gawd “lawyers”. Explains everything.

Second, the Ranger escalated the situation, not the guy with the dogs.

Third, like me, Gene has been in the business a heck of a lot longer than you. And you will not live long enough to outlast Gene in an argument. My family and Gene’s family have connections that go back multiple generations and I know him. Take it from me, you will not win an argument with an attorney who went to a Tier One law school, and you will not outlast him. Gene in an argument reminds me of this little guy:

Gene made a statement that was false. NPS use of force policy allows for use of force to affect an arrest.

If one part of an argument can be demonstrated to be false, then the rest is suspect. If Gene can’t get his facts straight, what else is he mistaken about? Isn’t this the standard when a witness is put on the stand to testify?

As for me, I think you are becoming repetitious and I find myself bored. Any new or original thoughts in there?

Commissioned employees may use a wide variety of defensive equipment and force options in response to various threats and other enforcement situations. The primary consideration is the timely and effective application of the appropriate level of force required to establish and maintain lawful control. The only justifications for the use of force are:
 To defend self
 To defend others
 To effect an arrest
 To restrain or control violent, threatening, or resistive behavior, or to disperse an unlawful group
Commissioned employees may use deadly force only when necessary; i.e. when the ranger, special agent or USPP officer has an objectively reasonable belief, in light of the facts and circumstances confronting the ranger, agent or officer, that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the ranger, agent or officer, or to another person. If force other than deadly force reasonably appears to be sufficient to accomplish an arrest or otherwise accomplish the law enforcement purpose, that is the preferred level of force. In no instance shall deadly force be utilized unless such use is objectively reasonable under the circumstances. “Deadly force” is the use of any force that is likely to cause death or serious physical injury. Deadly force does not include force that is not likely to cause death or serious physical injury, but unexpectedly results in such death or injury.

Where did you get your version of the incident?

I’m re-posting an excerpt from the article that Professor Turley used as the source for his post. It includes a link to the entire article:

*****
Witnesses said the use of a stun gun and the arrest seemed excessive for someone walking two small dogs off leash.

“It was really scary,” said Michelle Babcock, who said she had seen the incident as she and her husband were walking their two border collies. “I just felt so bad for him.”

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.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/30/MN921N0LQT.DTL

Rep Jackie Speier does let one email her.

kenan01
46 Fans
4 hours ago ( 5:11 PM)
“I say taze ‘em all!” _ Barack Obama

Taze ‘em on an airplane, Taze ‘em on a bus, Taze ‘em at the grocery store, Taze ‘em while they flush.

Taze ‘em if they’re rich, Taze ‘em if they’re poor, Taze ‘em if they’re homeless, Taze the rich once more.

TazTaze ‘em if they’re paying on their student loans, Taze ‘em if they’re talkin’ on their new iPhones.

Taze ‘em in park while they’re walking dogs, Taze ‘em like they’re animals , make ‘em squeel like hogs.

Taze ‘em in their front yard sitting on the grass, Taze ‘em if they’re driving, who cares if they crash?

Yahoo news had this account. Also check huffington post. There are at least two witness accounts, and they both contradict each other. I would prefer a suspension of judgement before all the facts are laid out.

Weapons are the tools of fear;
A decent man will avoid them
except in the direst necessity
and, if compelled, will use them
only with the utmost restraint.
Peace is his highest value.
If the peace has been shattered,
how can he be content?
His enemies are not demons,
but humans beings like himself.
He doesn’t wish them personal harm.
Nor does he rejoice in victory
How could he rejoice in victory
And delight in the slaughter of men?

He enters a battle gravely, with sorrow and with great compassion, as if he were attending a funeral.

And that is the lesson you have apparently not learned when you defend the person who crossed the line into violence – the Park Ranger. Words, even disrespectful words, are not the equivalent of physical violence. You are defending the force of arms when you excuse the Park Ranger’s actions.

In the words of Morpheus, “Neo, sooner or later you’re going to realize just as I did that there’s a difference between knowing the path and walking the path.”

If you’re going to have the reactions of a cartoon character, Neo is a far better role model than Eric Cartman.