Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ranger zaps off-leash dog walker with shock weapon
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | January 31, 2012 | Jill Tucker

Posted on 01/31/2012 10:11:22 AM PST by servo1969

A Montara man walking two lapdogs off leash was hit with an electric-shock gun by a National Park Service ranger after allegedly giving a false name and trying to walk away, authorities said Monday.

The park ranger encountered Gary Hesterberg with his two small dogs Sunday afternoon at Rancho Corral de Tierra, which was recently incorporated into the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, said Howard Levitt, a spokesman for the park service.

Hesterberg, who said he didn't have identification with him, allegedly gave the ranger a false name, Levitt said.

The ranger, who wasn't identified, asked Hesterberg to remain at the scene, Levitt said. He tried several times to leave, and finally the ranger "pursued him a little bit and she did deploy her" electric-shock weapon, Levitt said. "That did stop him."

--snip--

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

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Outdoors; Pets/Animals; Society
KEYWORDS: corruption; dog; doggieping; donutwatch; govtabuse; jbt; leash; leo; lping; policestate; ranger; rapeofliberty; taser; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-114 next last
To: Lazamataz

That’s not the way it works. You’d get zapped too.


51 posted on 01/31/2012 11:59:27 AM PST by O6ret
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

What do you think a NPS ranger is? And she didn’t zap the guy because his dogs were off-leash, she did it because she suspected he gave false information and tried to leave.


52 posted on 01/31/2012 12:03:22 PM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: stormer

Why don’t you get this? Why? Was he under arrest? No? Bye!


53 posted on 01/31/2012 12:07:20 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: stormer
Look dude, you lick their boots.

See ya.

54 posted on 01/31/2012 12:08:06 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

He was not arrested, he was being detained. Here’s what a LEO wrote when asked the difference between detention and arrest from http://www.realpolice.net/forums/ask-cop-112/81879-detained-vs-arrested.html:

Detentions are shorter in duration and scope than arrest, and require a lower burden of proof.

If I have Reasonable Suspicion that a crime has or is about to occur, and reasonably believe that a person may have information about this, I can detain them for a short period of time to investigate the matter. As part of my investigation, I can conduct a pat down for weapons (if I reasonably believe that they may be present) and seek information to determine exactly what is, has, or will happen. The timeframe can vary a bit due to each set of circumstances, but 20 minutes or so has been ruled to be a reasonable timeframe for detaining someone.

If I have Probable Cause to believe a specific person has committed a crime, I can arrest that person. At that point, I can conduct a complete search of their person for weapons, evidence, and contraband, as well as their vehcile if they are or have been near it recently. I can remove them from the scene and hold them (in jail) for 24 hours or until I get a warrant issued for the charges.

If anyone resists an arrest or detention, I am authorized to use force to apprehend them (in addition, resisting an arrest or detention is a crime, so resisting immediately gives me probable cause to make an arrest).

Normally I don’t have to use any “meaningful” physical force to restrain someone I am detaining or arresting. Most people cooperate on their own.

A person can usually tell (with me) because I’ll tell them when they are under arrest. If a case arises when I handcuff someone who is merely detained, I will tell them, “You’re not under arrest at this time; you are being detained while I investigate what’s going on.”


55 posted on 01/31/2012 12:08:25 PM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: O6ret
That’s not the way it works. You’d get zapped too.

Indefinite detention without recourse is tyranny.

After the zapping, I would have your badge, and a nice settlement.

56 posted on 01/31/2012 12:08:27 PM PST by Lazamataz (Norm Lenhart knows nothing about reloading.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

When you get pulled over in a traffic stop, are you under arrest? No, you are being detained. Try to leave and see what happens...


57 posted on 01/31/2012 12:10:05 PM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: stormer
Right. Detention is up to twenty minutes, a timeframe that seems to have been well-exceeded in this case.

After 20 minutes, arrest me, cite me, or let me go.

Or else I get your badge and a check.

58 posted on 01/31/2012 12:11:21 PM PST by Lazamataz (Norm Lenhart knows nothing about reloading.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
As an additional factor...near as I can tell from my 2 minutes of Google searching, California does not have a "stop and identify" law. Thus, I don't know that he had to provide a name anyhow...

especially true because it seems like the LEO's basis for detention is tenuous at best.

59 posted on 01/31/2012 12:17:37 PM PST by Axeslinger (Where has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Hodar

What you said. And the police state environment we are living in still does nothing to guarantee our personal safety.


60 posted on 01/31/2012 12:19:36 PM PST by pierrem15 (Claudius: "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Women thug cops often use any excuse to use their weapons. They know they can use them more often because they are generally smaller and weaker and therefore have built-in excuses to use them where a male officer couldn’t.

Plus many badged thugs, both male and female, are just looking for any reason nowaday to test out their weapons on the public.

I caveat my remarks by adding the descriptor “thug” in them. Not all cops are thugs. I am discussing the ones that are.


61 posted on 01/31/2012 12:29:35 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Give an insignificant little worm some authority and it goes Gestapo on you. Too many (not all) law enforcement types have an unhealthy lust for power.


62 posted on 01/31/2012 12:29:59 PM PST by TexasRepublic (Socialism is the gospel of envy and the religion of thieves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

That would be hard to know at the moment. Maybe later on she learned he gave different info to the ambulance crew or after his attorney contacted her department.


63 posted on 01/31/2012 12:30:58 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

And that’s exactly what he was saying at the end. she could do any of those three things without needing to hear from her “base” commander.

Actually the guy pretty much followed the script the ACLU has people go through when you’re stopped by a LEO. Especially one who is fishing for something to get you on.

Asking those questions - am I under arrest? Am I being detained? Why am I being detained? Am I free to go now? - are not just to harass the officer, it is to know what specifically is going on and whether you can leave, or why you cannot.


64 posted on 01/31/2012 12:36:03 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

He may not have been under arrest but detained (a temporary state) but you can’t do that all day.


65 posted on 01/31/2012 12:37:46 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

“San Mateo County sheriff’s deputies and paramedics then arrived and Hesterberg gave his real name, the park spokesman said.”

True. Not much of anything is said why she then continued to detain him, but, perhaps she sensed he wasn’t being truthful. His persistence in wanting to leave may also have been a factor. Although, he was there for some time. In any case, he should not have left without permission, since he had no ID.


66 posted on 01/31/2012 12:38:59 PM PST by SgtHooper (The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother; Titan Magroyne; Badeye; Shannon; SandRat; arbooz; potlatch; ...
WOOOF!

The Doggie Ping list is for FReepers who would like to be notified of threads relating to all things canid. If you would like to join the Doggie Ping Pack (or be unleashed from it), FReemail me.

67 posted on 01/31/2012 12:41:11 PM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: stormer

Could be the person who wrote the “eye-witness” description was the person who was tazed by the officer and trying to cover for their actions. I’ve seen this done before on numerous forums where one poster will have multiple log in IDs and post as numerous persons to cover for themselves and give themselves support.

The perp and the eye-witness might be one in the same person. Posting so that it makes the actions of the ranger seem illegal.


68 posted on 01/31/2012 12:42:31 PM PST by Jack Burton007 (This is Jack Burton in the Pork Chop Express, and I'm talkin' to whoever's listenin' out there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

There is no evidence the guy was truthful as to his heart condition either. He lied to her, gave his real name to the police. So what if an ambulance was involved. No evidence.


69 posted on 01/31/2012 12:43:56 PM PST by SgtHooper (The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

I don’t think so...

1. Not leashing two dogs as required
2. Knowingly providing false identification
3. Failure to obey a lawful order
4. ZZZZZZZZZap!


70 posted on 01/31/2012 12:44:15 PM PST by O6ret
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

I don’t see anything in the article that discusses the time frame involved; it could have only been five minutes. But if he can’t produce ID and she suspects he’s given a false name, I’d say she’s well within her authority to either wait for instructions or back-up. A month ago in my neck of the woods we had a NPS ranger killed by a guy who didn’t want to stop at a routine tire chain checkpoint.


71 posted on 01/31/2012 12:52:14 PM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: O6ret

I get real tired of people who think they can blow-off law enforcement when they clearly broke and/or were advised that they broke, the law. He got what he deserved, no matter who was behind the tazer.

Rule: Treat law enforcemnt with respect - sue later.


72 posted on 01/31/2012 12:52:32 PM PST by SgtHooper (The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

If I were a lawyer, I’d be knocking on this guys door.

Sue her, sue the agency.


73 posted on 01/31/2012 1:00:57 PM PST by TASMANIANRED (We kneel to no prince but the Prince of Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
The officerette's first problem is that a valid Terry stop requires a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. While an officer may ask a subject to identify himself, in the 9th Circuit, he doesn't have to answer. At that point the officer has to fish or cut bait, either arrest him or say goodbye.

The officer's second problem is that there would have to be a record of her radio communication seeking to identify the subject if she knew that he had given her a false name (otherwise, how would she know?) Giving the officer false information (as opposed to just politely smiling) would provide the officer with reasonable grounds for continuing the stop,but claiming that the subject gave her a false name and that she majically knew it to be so would be weak under any circumstance, but is going to cost the government some real money in a false arrest civil suit in light of the presence of an unfriendly eye witness.

74 posted on 01/31/2012 1:05:37 PM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: stormer; DJ MacWoW

Jeeze, stormer. Are you singing the Scarecrow song? “If I Only Had A Brain?”

Just because it was an NPS ranger is no indication she has brains. It was probably the only job she could get: No brains needed...just willingness to confront those who HAVE brains.

Yah. Like that.


75 posted on 01/31/2012 1:11:54 PM PST by Monkey Face (Stop repeat offenders. Don't re-elect them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: O6ret
I don’t think so... 1. Not leashing two dogs as required

Civil matter or minor infraction at best, unworthy of a physical assault. Unless, of course, you love Our Police State.

2. Knowingly providing false identification

This one is much more problematic, although, one person on this thread has stated that California does not require production of identity on an 'order'. In any case, it's still not worthy of physical assault.

3. Failure to obey a lawful order

At some point, the order becomes unlawful. At that point, the person who should be prosecuted, is the officer. I might not have tried to leave unless denied counsel. I would have demanded IMMEDIATE counsel. I would have wanted my attorney THERE if the guy or gal tried to detain me without arrest for much more than, say, an hour.

I think that this trend to zap everyone, and the newest trends (to deny habeaus corpus or allow counsel) are very dangerous and are quite indicative of the trend towards a true Police State. Soon, we will be there.

4. ZZZZZZZZZap!

The answer of far too many officers, far to early in the encounter.

76 posted on 01/31/2012 1:20:09 PM PST by Lazamataz (Norm Lenhart knows nothing about reloading.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: stormer

Did he write his name down? Did he tell her how to spell it? Without proper ID if my name is Paul and I tell them Scott then unless I tell them how to spell it that’s what I go by, and hell, that’s how I choose to pronounce Paul. This guy is going to get one hell of a check when this is all over, arrest me, cite me, or get the hell out of my way.


77 posted on 01/31/2012 1:20:15 PM PST by Abathar (Proudly posting without reading the article carefully since 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Monkey Face

LOL!!!


78 posted on 01/31/2012 1:20:51 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: SgtHooper
Rule: Treat law enforcemnt with respect - sue later.

Is that respect two-way?

Or will I get tazed for asking that question?

79 posted on 01/31/2012 1:23:22 PM PST by Lazamataz (Norm Lenhart knows nothing about reloading.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, let me crank it up a little more....there, how’s that feel!?

It is common knowledge, or at least it should be in these days, that LE or similar government agents can be aggressive. Smart “victims” should assess each situation on a case-by-case basis (better, avoid getting into the situations altogether), or face the consequences at that moment. It ain’t right, but it’s reality.


80 posted on 01/31/2012 1:31:39 PM PST by SgtHooper (The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: O6ret

Um, WHAT?

Do you think the police should be allowed to go around shocking every jaywalker and loiterer, too?


81 posted on 01/31/2012 1:33:48 PM PST by Politicalmom (Lazamataz for president!! NO MORE RINOS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
:o])
82 posted on 01/31/2012 1:41:41 PM PST by Monkey Face (Stop repeat offenders. Don't re-elect them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: The Working Man

It’s an interesting facet about humans and our behavior. As long as the loss we experience is less than value of what we keep then we will complain bitterly and then go no further, (Usually!). But when we feel that there is nothing left to lose then we will turn and fight until only we or our oppressor is still amongst the living. The question here of course is at what point does fighting back overcome the fear of losing everything?


Perhaps these are some examples

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586581,00.html

http://www.disclose.tv/forum/ohio-man-angry-at-banks-irs-bulldozes-house-t16578.html

http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20060613043352326


83 posted on 01/31/2012 1:44:52 PM PST by Cowman (How can the IRS seize property without a warrant if the 4th amendment still stands?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SgtHooper
It ain’t right, but it’s reality.

Precisely. So how about you and I join forces to make the reality more right?

84 posted on 01/31/2012 1:57:59 PM PST by Lazamataz (Norm Lenhart knows nothing about reloading.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Annoyingly tedious and difficult, using the system, but it is the only way, short of being “actively involved” during a detainment or arrest, and then suing where there are grounds. So make our voices heard by calling people and complaining to Congress-people, blah, blah. That’s a sad reality, too. I feel it’ll get much worse before it gets better.


85 posted on 01/31/2012 2:42:16 PM PST by SgtHooper (The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

If suspected of a violation (even a minor one like walking an unleashed dog) you must provide identification if/when asked.

Agree, it’s a minor infraction, but once observed and stopped by the Ranger you must provide proper ID if requested. Failing to do so raises the ante unnecessarily.

Providing false ID is not at all problematic, it’s wrong and it’s illegal. Now we’re out of the civil infraction category.

Citizens in our society are obligated to follow the directions of appointed authorities...even it they think them wrong. There were witnesses present, he could have waited it out and brought charges later. Sounds to me like he knew he screwed up with the false name and was trying to get himself out of it by leaving.

If we allow citizens to determine when a an order becomes unlawful we’d have anarchy in the streets.

Besides....only illegal aliens are not required to show correct identification.


86 posted on 01/31/2012 3:08:50 PM PST by O6ret
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

“Women thug cops often use any excuse to use their weapons. They know they can use them more often because they are generally smaller and weaker and therefore have built-in excuses to use them where a male officer couldn’t.”

I got my degree in law enforcement from Cops University, on Fox TV channel. One episode had a gang of large male cops piling on to a rather husky gentleman and he was wearing down. Circling the pack was a small woman cop with her taser out screaming, “I’m gonna taser him! Let me taser him!” There were ten hands on the fella and all of them would have shared the shock. Luckily someone told her no and they got everything worked out.

On an older pre-taser era episode, another pile of male cops were sorting out an active person on the ground and the lady cop leaned in and doused everyone with pepper spray. Thanks a million, ma’am.


87 posted on 01/31/2012 3:26:36 PM PST by eartrumpet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: The Working Man

“The question here of course is at what point does fighting back overcome the fear of losing everything?”

Hopefully before it comes to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2ZhQrWQj7k


88 posted on 01/31/2012 3:27:55 PM PST by Polynikes (Hakkaa Palle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: stormer

Also, the witness doesn’t dispute the fact that the man walked away when being told to stay. If a law enforcement officer tells you to wait, you wait.
***************************************************
If there was no signage at the park to indicate that the ranger had jurisdiction I’d walk too ,, same as if she tried to detain me at a shopping mall or in my own yard ... no jurisdiction.


89 posted on 01/31/2012 3:38:39 PM PST by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: O6ret
Tazing was excessive. She had the responsibility to detain briefly (under an hour is reasonable) and then arrest based on the crime of misidentification. Citing wasn't an option, obviously, with the failure to identify. So, obviously, she chose not to arrest, but to continue to detain, and that bad decision lead to another bad one, to taze.

Leaving aside those legalities, this is also a PR black eye.

90 posted on 01/31/2012 4:04:58 PM PST by Lazamataz (Norm Lenhart knows nothing about reloading.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Tarantulas
This guy giving the ranger a false name was a big red flag and a loud alarm bell, indicating that further investigation was necessary.

Something that wasn't discovered or admitted to until AFTER the tazing.

The only comment that I have is that the Ranger didn't seem to be properly trained before walking the trail. She seemed to be radioing in for instructions as to what to do next, thereby losing control of the situation.

91 posted on 01/31/2012 4:26:06 PM PST by Tallguy (It's all 'Fun and Games' until somebody loses an eye!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
Not all cops are thugs. I am discussing the ones that are.

Well, I would say--without putting a number on it since I don't have that number--a significant number of them are thuggish. It comes with the personality of a person who wants to be an LEO. Controlling other people is built into that personality.

Just my opinion.

92 posted on 01/31/2012 5:14:26 PM PST by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Why any American still thinks that they live under a limited government of laws, not men, is beyond me. That there is even a debate about the arbitrary tasering of non-compliant ccitizens is chilling.

American-style Socialism is metastasizing under the Obama regime - and no viable Republican alternative seems ready to combat that. At every level of government, violent over-reaction to perceived disrespect has become endemic.

There is no particular reason to be optimistic about the immediate future.


93 posted on 01/31/2012 7:32:34 PM PST by headsonpikes (Mass murder and cannibalism are the twin sacraments of socialism - "Who-whom?"-Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz; O6ret

>So do I, Sparky.<

Heh, Sparky. What an appropriate use of the name.

But then of course, we expect nothing less of the one and only Laz.


94 posted on 02/01/2012 7:12:01 AM PST by Darnright ("I don't trust liberals, I trust conservatives." - Lucius Annaeus Seneca)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: stormer

>If I have Reasonable Suspicion that a crime has or is about to occur,<

But in this case there’s some dork with a couple of little anklebiters he’s neglected to leash.

Come on, if that’s what you or your fellow officers consider a “crime”, we’re in a heap o’ trouble. The citizen complied with the leash rule once he was informed of the requirement. The ranger admitted she was there to educate. “Education” does not usually entail tasers in a free society.


95 posted on 02/01/2012 7:20:24 AM PST by Darnright ("I don't trust liberals, I trust conservatives." - Lucius Annaeus Seneca)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom

Either you are confused or you read a different story...

He was stopped for walking his unleashed dogs. No big deal.

But when asked for an ID he then provided a false name. This is no longer in the category of a civil offense.

Then, when when given a lawful order to remain at the site, he attempted to leave. Not smart.


96 posted on 02/01/2012 7:25:01 AM PST by O6ret
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: O6ret
Sounds to me like he knew he screwed up with the false name and was trying to get himself out of it by leaving.

Say a cop stops you in the street for jaywalking. How long can he or she keep you there? Is the order to "Don't go anywhere" still lawful after an hour? What about five hours? How about 24 hours?

There is a limit, beyond which the order to "stay put" is no longer a lawful order. Also, if a police officer is detaining you, he or she is legally obligated to inform you that he or she is detaining you in response to a direct query.

Our perp in this case may not be a hero, but the cop is no hero either.

97 posted on 02/01/2012 7:34:29 AM PST by Oberon (Big Brutha Be Watchin'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Oberon

You’re focusing on the wrong point....

The issue us not why he was stopped (although it was totally legit) but what he did afterwards.

Giving the Ranger a false name elevated the issue from a minor civil matter to any number of more serious charges.

Attempting to leave when told not to just aggravated the situation. I don’t know if use of the Tazer was warranted but if he refused an order to stop three times as reported could be the Ranger felt she had no other option.


98 posted on 02/01/2012 8:00:41 AM PST by O6ret
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
Too bad the eye-witness account doesn’t back that up.

Are you going to let the word of a trained and experienced Ranger be overridden by a mere citizen?

</sarcasm>

99 posted on 02/01/2012 8:18:20 AM PST by Mr.Unique (EVERYBODY is a RINO. Except me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mr.Unique

No. But ya gotta let the boot lickers spread spittle. The rest of us will stand upright. ;-)


100 posted on 02/01/2012 8:25:54 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-114 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson