In California’s Rancho Corral de Tierra (part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area), a National Park Service Ranger reportedly shot Gary Hesterberg in the back with a taser after he walked away during a confrontation over walking his two lapdogs off leash. He was then arrested on suspicion of failing to obey a lawful order, having dogs off-leash and knowingly providing false information. The park service spokesperson reportedly said it is all part of teaching citizens about the new leash law in the area . . . or teaching Hesterberg to heel.
Witnesses objected that the force was excessive and said that the ranger refused to respond when confronted over the necessity or reason for the arrest.
The ranger says that Hesterberg gave a false name and then began to walk away from the ranger. Howard Levitt, a spokesman for the park service, added that he did not have identification on him. Levitt explained that the ranger “pursued him a little bit and she did deploy her [electric-shock weapon] . . . That did stop him.”
It is common for people to walk their dogs off leash in the area, but when the area was made part of the national park system in December, a new leash rule was imposed.
The article below says that Levitt explained that “the ranger was trying to educate residents of the rule.” Wow, if true, that is quite a lesson plan. Stop, explain, tase, and repeat.
The account of these witnesses not only raises serious questions of excessive force but also excessive charges that followed the alleged abuse. We have seen other cases of alleged abuse where citizens have been hit with an array of charges. This creates significant pressure for the accused to plead or remain silent. I do not see why a taser would be needed on such a minor offense.
Source: SF Gate
As I said, one can see a photo perhaps of Gary Hesterberg on Facebook. There are 2 in the US and we don’t know if the Facebook page belongs to the one in Calif or the one in Florida. Assuming that is him, he looks old. He has salt and pepper hair. IMHO if he told her he had a heart condition and she tased me in the back anyway, which is what is reported in the news stories, she had murderous intent. She is lucky he did not die. She is lucky she is only looking at being fired. She might have been facing jail time. It goes to show who was off her rocker.
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.
A Primer in EriC’s:
http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2011/10/how-to-stop-caring-about-trolls-and-get-on-with-your-life/
Thanks OS!
raff, you nailed it!
Hal, regarding Tasers being lethal. According to the manufacturer and the police agencies that adopt them, they are “non-lethal.” However, that does not mean they do not kill. It is just that they are not supposed to kill. In point of fact, they do kill people. There have been a large number of Taser deaths. If the number quoted above is correct, 351 deaths in a seven year period is hardly reflective of a non-lethal weapon.
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.
OS,
When I hit 60 years old, I began to believe that 60 is the new 40!
Hal, probably the same people who kept calling Osama bin Laden an “old man,” as if he were this frail octogenarian. ObL was 54.
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.
“The only violent person here was the Park Ranger. She tasered an old man in the back.”
It would be interesting to find out why people think Mr. Hesterberg is an “old man.” He is 50 years old.
Hal,
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.
OS,
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 Amnesty International, between 2001 and 2008 a total of 351 people in the United States died after being shocked by police tasers.”
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.
“Random witnesses don’t get to make this call,”
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.
“What is your next move? Let a man after breaking 3 laws, with unconfirmed identity, just walk away?”
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.
Hilarious OS!
Gene, arguing with some people is much like poking a dead body with a stick. Does not hurt the corpse, does not accomplish anything, does not affect the decay process, yet is strangely satisfying.
Google “Golden Gate taser” you will find various different articles have stated everything I repeated.
“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?
Bruce, did you know you just invoked Godwin’s Law? In an extended discussion or argument, the first to invoke a Nazi reference loses automatically. I did not spend thirteen years getting a University education to argue with the likes of you. You may have noticed I comment sparingly. The reason for that is I have no time nor energy for superficial and non productive discussion or arguments.
“To defend self” – The Park Ranger was in no danger and did not act in self-defense according to the facts presented.
“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.
Gary,
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.
First of all, it is “effect” not “affect” an arrest. Misuse of those two words is one of my pet grammar peeves.
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:
Grammar nazi now are we? If you can’t win an argument, correct the grammar.
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.
Bruce, if you think you can outlast Gene H. in an argument, you have another think coming.
As for me, I think you are becoming repetitious and I find myself bored. Any new or original thoughts in there?
Scribe,
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?