Ranger zaps off-leash dog walker with shock weapon, page 5

privacy

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 15 times

reply posted on 4-2-2012 @ 09:17 AM by rainbowbear

me to Ranger Bob:am I being detained?

Ranger Bob: (nothing)

I walk away, ranger Bob pulls out his taser...

I pull out my piece, and shoot. to kill.

WHY? Because we are at risk of NO protection from beating, rape, and murder at the hands of thugs. As woman, the chances of you being raped are HUGE.

This is what the Russians WISHED they would have done, in the beginning, before the Gulag. This will put a stop to the abuse. If every agent didnt know if he would live to see his family. I choose to learn from history.

Nip this in the bud, NOW. before it gets worse.

edit on 4-2-2012 by rainbowbear because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 4-2-2012 @ 09:43 AM by sligtlyskeptical

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by cconn487

Then my apologies for the comment I made. You came across as making a factual statement and not a hypothetical one.

Let me clarify my position.
The Ranger made a legitimate contact with the guy walking his dogs since they were not on a leash. The escalation came in when the guy decided to ignore the rangers request, and went over the line when he decided he could provide false information and then just walk away.

Should the taser have been used? I think, based on the info in the article, that it was not necessary. However there are some variables we dont know, which can affect use of force (subject resistance control).

* - Female officer vs. male subject.
As sexist as it sounds, female officers will go through / meet requirements in the force continuum faster than a male in the same situation.

* - How tall was the officer compared to the male.
* - How far apart is the weight difference
* - Is there any type of muscular difference (IE is the guy more muscular than the average male)
* - Are there any visible tattoos on the male that depict gang / prison history
* - Did the subject make any threats to the Ranger during the encounter?

All of which doesn't cross the minds of people in the thread.

The article is vague in these areas and at the same time the variables are taken into consideration when force is used. The standard that will be used to review her use of force will be what the Supreme Court established.

What exactly did the officer perceive as a threat when force was used. Hindsight 20/20 cannot be used since the review is after the fact.

Anyways, again my apologies.

edit on 1-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Police should not turn to violence for a simple offense that really hurts no one. It shows a lack of professiolism and arrogance.

I would expect that you would Taser a kid running away after stealing a piece of bubble gum.

reply posted on 4-2-2012 @ 11:29 AM by Xcathdra

reply to post by rainbowbear

Then you should go back and re read the article where it states she told the guy numerous times to stop, which he did not.

reply posted on 4-2-2012 @ 11:34 AM by Xcathdra

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
Police should not turn to violence for a simple offense that really hurts no one.

Violence was not used for a simple offense. A Taser was used to stop the guy who was resisting a lawful detention / stop by walking away and refusing to stop when he was told to... He ignored that command numerous times, which is why the Taser was deployed.

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
It shows a lack of professiolism and arrogance.

As does the mindset that people shouldn't have to listen to park rangers because they aren't real police, when in fact they are. We can look at the professionalism that was lacking in the guy who walked away and ignored the ranger if we want. Or is he above the law simply because he is not a police officer?

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
I would expect that you would Taser a kid running away after stealing a piece of bubble gum.

....and you would be wrong, however your accusation and wrong conclusion is not surprising. Typical response from people who dont know the law and feel they are above the law even dealing with law enforcement.

Now.. do you want to keep going back and forth with personal insults, or should we stick to the facts and go from there?

reply posted on 4-2-2012 @ 11:55 AM by v1rtu0s0

Yeah, this is a bit rediculous. There was no violence being commited.

It's called EXCESSIVE use of power. It's like using a nuclear weapon to take out one individual.

The guy doesn't listen? You record it, get his identity, and send him a ticket or something.

You don't tazer someone if they are walking away.

reply posted on 4-2-2012 @ 12:07 PM by rainbowbear

reply to post by Xcathdra

in America, you are under NO authority to stop, even if asked, UNLESS YOU ARE BEING DETAINED. Neither the dogwalker, nor Ms Officer UNDERSTANDS THEIR RIGHTS!

At which point, ms officer would have had to have a DAMN good reason to tazer someone, with a clear offence, on the record....

no, lady screwed up. We have procedures for that kind of thing, no need to reinvent the wheel....

edit on 4-2-2012 by rainbowbear because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 4-2-2012 @ 01:42 PM by Xcathdra

reply to post by rainbowbear

You would be wrong... As was the guy in this case when he decided to lie about his identity, walk away from the officer and refuse to stop when told to do so.

The contact was valid since the person was in violation of the law with his dogs of the leash. When he lied about his identity that was another escalation.. When he left and refused to stop, that would be resisting a lawful detention / stop, which again escalated the situation.

It was obvious he was not going to comply with verbal commands since he was ignoring them and lying from the get go. Her options would have been to taser the guy, pepper spray the guy, or tackle the guy / go hands on. The guy made his choice and the result of that choice was him being tased, arrested and charged, as he should have been.

What country are you from?

edit on 4-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 7-2-2012 @ 01:05 PM by rainbowbear

reply to post by Xcathdra

however, you are under NO authority to talk with Officer, or divulge any info to Officer(not even your name). If you can provide any evidence that we are under any authority to say anything other than "am I being detained?" and "am I free to go?"
then I may agree with you.

Without a law in place as to why he needed to even give her the time of day, the Ranger is up a creek.

reply posted on 7-2-2012 @ 01:08 PM by rainbowbear

reply to post by v1rtu0s0

its good to know your rights when in a Federal Enclave, like federal buildings and land to which the Fed has Jurisdiction. In this case, the Park qualifies as a Federal enclave.

Hopefully the victim will follow suit and challenge this, and only this: Jurisdiction

reply posted on 8-2-2012 @ 01:43 PM by ScroodeMcDuck

reply to post by imalitehaus

W1LL your comments are dead right ! I too opposed the issue of tazers to law enforcement officers for the same "obvious" reasons.They are being utilized as on-the-spot "punishment" devices which makes the officer Judge,Jury,Prosecutor and Executioner at his/her discretion. Or in the situation where the threat of use is conveyed it becomes an Extortion/Coercive fear tool.I think these devices need to be reclassified as inhumane and lethal torture tools that have no use in civil society. What can we expect to happen when the next generation of "control" weapons are misused?(Microwaves,Lasers,LRAD,sound weapons,Gases)

reply posted on 8-2-2012 @ 02:11 PM by Xcathdra

Originally posted by rainbowbear
reply to post by Xcathdra

however, you are under NO authority to talk with Officer, or divulge any info to Officer(not even your name). If you can provide any evidence that we are under any authority to say anything other than "am I being detained?" and "am I free to go?"
then I may agree with you.

Without a law in place as to why he needed to even give her the time of day, the Ranger is up a creek.

And again if an officer makes contact with you for investigative reasons, which this was one, you have no right to walk away. You are temporarily detained under the 4th amendment and your freedom of movement is restricted until the officer is done with their investigation.

The officer stopped and made contact because he was in violation of the law (dogs on a leash). He then compounded the problem by knowingly providing false information and then made it worse when he decided to walk away and failed to stop when he was told to do so numerous times.

When the contact is voluntary then you are correct, a person is free to not cooperate and just walk away. That was not the case with this incident and the person had no legal right to walk away / fail to cooperate since the officer was investigating a law violation.

Its irrelevant if a person thinks violation of a leash law is ridiculous, as the proper forum to challenge the law is in the courts and not with the police, since we have absolutely nothing to do with resolution / constitutional challenge of a law. I really wish people would get that through their heads.

Its like the idiot ass arguments I see people making about a person being able to use deadly force on an officer for an unlawful arrest. Not only are they intentionally ignoring the other established case law by the Supreme Court for reasonable use of force given the situation at hand, the determination if an action is lawful or unlawful does NOT reside with the officer or the individual.

It resides with the court...

As far as the laws - Title 18 United States Code - Criminal Procedures

18 USC 1038 - False information and hoaxes

18 USC 2231 - Assault or resistance

18 USC 111 - Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees

edit on 8-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 12:17 PM by imalitehaus

reply to post by Xcathdra

Xcat, you're doing it again. MAN'S laws were made by, that's right, humans. Humans have no right to make ungodly laws against other human beings. And, as always, those who enforce those laws are in danger of permanently harming the good of their own souls.

I asked you to think it over, once. I really wish you would. I promise, it truly means something and it is important.

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 03:06 PM by Xcathdra

Originally posted by imalitehaus
........... And, as always, those who enforce those laws are in danger of permanently harming the good of their own souls.

I sleep just fine at night... Exactly how good is a soul of a person who intentionally violates the law? Or is your argument the Police are the only ones who are accountable for their actions, while giving a pass to anyone else?

Originally posted by imalitehaus
I asked you to think it over, once. I really wish you would. I promise, it truly means something and it is important.

I did, and I dont agree with your point of view on this. The guy was not tased because his dog was off the leash. He was tased because he resisted arrest and provided false identification.

If laws are created by man for man, dont you think man should abide by them? Or just the police?

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 06:10 PM by imalitehaus

reply to post by Xcathdra

Okay, we are always going to disagree on this point, which you are deliberately, I would say, stubbornly, missing. Man's laws are not always for the good of man. Often, they are diametrically opposed to the laws God intended.

If you misunderstand my meaning, I'll explain. Simply put, God's intention for Man is that we exercise free will. Laws against Man's freedom should be severely limited.

And no, the man in question wasn't resisting arrest when the rabid power-maddened, 'officer' had NO RIGHT to attempt to arrest him. Freedom is a right. Highly inventive, harassing laws are not a right, nor are they correct.

I'm not at all surprised you sleep well at night. But, a clear conscience doesn't mean a thing, when it is possessed by an unbalanced personality.

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 06:15 PM by Xcathdra

reply to post by imalitehaus

So you are of the mindset you are exempt from being held accountable for your actions. If we have free will, then the guy exercised his being providing false information, dog of a leash and resisting a lawful arrest / detention by fleeing the scene and refusing to stop when told.

The Officer exercised her free will by making contact with the individual because his dogs were off the leash, and proceeded to exercise her free will be attempting to take the man into custody for providing false information and resisting a lawful detention / arrest by fleeing.

You are right we will not agree. I do find it humorous though how you attack other for not sharing your view point.

Exactly how does God feel about you judging others from your own moral standpoint? Or do you justify that by using the free will excuse?

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 06:29 PM by imalitehaus

reply to post by Xcathdra

You see how bitter you've become? I don't hold my views as superior to yours, as you are entitled to your views. I do, however, consider my viewpoint as being the CORRECT one. I believe I have the majority opinion on my side, but I'm not going to drag everyone else into this. We will always disagree, Xcat.

And, to be fair, I should make it clear that it is my OPINION that you sound unbalanced.

In closing, I want to add that bitterness is yet another sign of an unhappy, restless soul. Blessings, Xcat.

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 06:32 PM by Xcathdra

reply to post by imalitehaus

Majority opinion? Thats not always as cracked up as it used to be since the Nazis had a majority opinion for some of their actions, of which they were hung for at the end of the war.

We can end our back and forth here since you are veering into the realm of forcing your viewpoints religion and make believe instead of the situation and the laws that apply to it.

I'm not bitter at all but if thats what you need to tell yourself more power to you. The laws in place apply to all where as your religious laws don't. Funny how that works.

edit on 9-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 06:42 PM by imalitehaus

reply to post by Xcathdra

Really, I thought this debate was closed! I like your comparison of majority opinion being embraced by Nazis. Now, take a good look at that idea.

Hitler's "vision" is exactly what I, and millions of other Americans, see happening in our own country today. That is exactly why we believe in more restrictions on police. The law needs to work both ways for it to be the right Law.

I'm happy enough with this conclusion. And seriously, I meant it when I said "blessings" to you.

edit on 9-2-2012 by imalitehaus because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 07:22 PM by Xcathdra

reply to post by imalitehaus

The point your missing behind the Nazi comparison is the fact the view point was a failure in all regards.

As far as blessing goes this is the internet. Its hard enough to figure out context and tone when people respond and that is further compounded by the emotions and passions behind the posts.

I have nothing personal against you. We dont see eye to eye on this topic. Thats doesn't mean we dont or wont agree on other topics.

On this topic we dont agree.. Nothing wrong with differences of opinions. Its when we stop accepting that possibility that I will start to worry for civilization.

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 07:38 PM by imalitehaus

reply to post by Xcathdra

Oh, the endless debate that was closed some time back. I am surely the one who got the correct implications of the Nazi comparison. If laws are needed for anyone, it is the ruling Authority. It had to be noted, so there it is.

I do think there are other things we will agree on. Hopefully, anyway. And there's nothing wrong with blessings, even over the internet (maybe especially over the internet.) Everyone can use a little more light in an increasingly dark world.

Edit to add: I've really got nothing against you personally, either. I've actually been pretty charged by the debate. The best to you.

edit on 9-2-2012 by imalitehaus because: (no reason given)

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 6 >> ^^TOP^^