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 ...
To a point. At some point, it becomes, “Arrest me, cite me, or let me go.”
You mean kinda like what was (and is still being) attempted in Fast & Furious?
Excellent point. Some folks wonder why cops pull people over for burned out license plate lights. The answer is, that’s how they find wanted criminals. This guy giving the ranger a false name was a big red flag and a loud alarm bell, indicating that further investigation was necessary. She would have been wrong to let him go. Imagine the headlines: “Park ranger failed to identify notorious rapist before he killed Oakland cheerleader.”
It sounds like Mr. Hesterberg wasn’t the innocent angel he was made out to be:
“The incident occurred around 4:45 p.m. when the man was walking two dogs near the southern edge of McNee Ranch State Park. A ranger working for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area stopped the man for having one of his dogs off-leash, which is restricted in certain areas of the Rancho Corral property.
An escalating argument ensued, according to John Barlett, a nearby resident who was walking in the area. The dog-walker was “defiant,” Barlett said, daring the ranger as he began walking away, “Are you going to arrest me?”
That’s when the ranger pulled out her Taser, according to Barlett.”
Yes, That is one example and a good one. The shooting incident with Congresswoman Giffords is another example.
You might laugh at me but there are times when I think that Ayn Rand was very prophetic in Atlas Shrugs. The goal was to have every man, woman and child in an assigned place with no hope of leaving it. In other words a universal medieval Serfdom for the masses and a very few nobles to enjoy the fruits of their labors.
From the comments after the article:
“The comments here are a very good example of the divide between Americans and Authoritarians. Authoritarians of course believe that citizens should submit to the authority of government where as Americans think it is government that should submit to the authority of We The People. I’m not saying citizens should have the right to run wild as of course we have laws for a reason however an American would recognize that there are two types of laws, ones that protect us and others that enslave us. The litmus test for identifying which category a law falls into is simple. That test is if a victim be identified.
Let’s take the law that requires supposed free citizens to give identification when approached by a government representative. When I was a kid we used the scene of a Nazi Gestapo agent approaching a person and asking for papers to scare people into thinking how close we came to living in a world with that type of government abuse. Let’s set aside the obvious fact that our Constitution forbids government from infringing on our right to remain silent or our right not to incriminate ourselves and just focus on the fact that there is no victim. Who did this guy hurt? Some people say he could have been a criminal however anyone walking down the street could be a criminal thus is this justification for government agents to tase us at will?
Think about it and also ask yourself if you like the direction our country is heading. Are you willing to give up the Constitutional protections that so many have fought and died for because you’re afraid of some perceived terrorist threat? Do you think those who fought and died we afraid when they were being shot at and bombed? Of course they were but they died giving us all the gift of freedom. Don’t spit on their effort by condoning such governmental abuse.”
Hmmmmm
She was not a "federal officer" She was a park ranger who found a guy with his two dogs off-leash and made it a major crime. She is an idiot.
If you can't see the overkill because of a leash offense then I can't help you.
Semper Fi,
TS
See my new *tagline* :)
The subect was either under arrest or he was not. If he was under arrest, the officer erred in not telling him so; if he was not under arrest, the officer’s “command” was not lawful. She can’t have it both ways.
That’s not the way it works. You’d get zapped too.
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.
Why don’t you get this? Why? Was he under arrest? No? Bye!
See ya.
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.”
Indefinite detention without recourse is tyranny.
After the zapping, I would have your badge, and a nice settlement.
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...
After 20 minutes, arrest me, cite me, or let me go.
Or else I get your badge and a check.
especially true because it seems like the LEO's basis for detention is tenuous at best.
What you said. And the police state environment we are living in still does nothing to guarantee our personal safety.
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.