Philadelphia Inquirer, Associated Press, 1/31/12."Ranger uses stun gun on man walking dogs off-leash"."MONTARA--
At least one witness is shaking her head in disbelief at a federal park
ranger's use of a stun gun over the weekend on a man accused of walking
his two small dogs without a leash in violation of park rules.
The
National Park Service said the ranger hit Gary Hesterberg with the stun
gun on Sunday at Rancho Corral de Tierra in San Mateo County after
Hesterberg gave her a false name and then tried to walk away. But
Michelle Babcock told the San Francisco Chronicle the ranger never gave
Hesterberg an explanation as to why he was being detained and then hit
him with the stun gun in the back. "He just tried to walk away," Babcock said. "She never gave him a reason. ... It didn't make any sense."Hesterberg was arrested on suspicion of failing to obey a lawful order, having dogs off-leash and knowingly providing false information, according to Howard Levitt, a spokesman for the park service. Levitt said the ranger, who has not been identified, asked Hesterberg to remain at the scene, and he repeatedly tried to leave. She was able to stop him after deploying the stun gun, Levitt said.
The ranger was trying to educate residents about the leash requirement, he said. Rancho Corral was recently incorporated into the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, which last year proposed tighter rules on dogs. Leashes would be required in open spaces where dogs currently roam untethered, and some popular dog-walking areas would be closed to canines entirely under the proposal, which has been criticized by dog owners. Park service officials and environmentalists said they want to protect some 1,200 native plant and animal species, including the Snowy Plover, a federally endangered shorebird."
This story was originally carried by the San Francisco Chronicle-- its "everywhere". Interesting update read on Pacifica Patch, 1/31/12.
Several months ago, I vaguely recall our
city council grumbling about GGNRA stipulations, (same city council
members who worked to rid this city of these properties). Oh too bad,
the properties are gone, and co-existence with GGNRA ownership is more
like having "another nation" in your city backyard.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
15 comments:
From this account of the incident it seems the ranger over-reacted. The guy was being a jerk but he was walking away and no threat so why the use of extreme force? There were other options. Looks like she needs a new career where the decisions are less "binding" and he's real lucky she didn't confuse the taser with her gun and shoot him dead like that guy on Bart.
"There were other options."
Such as?
Taze Fido?
"Such as?"
Such as letting the person walk away and saving the department 6 figures in legal and settlement fees.
The US 9th circuit court of appeals has ruled that Tasers are only to be used if the person poses an immediate and obvious threat. I'm no fan of off leash dogs, but I'm less a fan of excessive use of force.
Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. This ranger needs a new career. WTF!
I'm not a lawyer, but here's my off-the-cuff understanding and opinion:
Once the ranger spots the dog-walker with an unleashed dog, she initiates what's called a Terry Stop. This is a right the peace office has to detain an individual based upon a reasonable suspicion that the dog-walker has committed a crime (i.e., an off leash dog) and is called a Terry Stop or a Terry Search based upon the Supreme Court decision in Terry v. Ohio. This is a non-consensual stop.
CA does not have a "stop and identify" requirement on the books any longer (used to, though), so the dog-walker isn't required to identify himself, but he is required to remain on the scene untilthe Ranger indicates that he is free to leave (One can usually initiate this by asking, "Am I under arrest or am I free to go now?").
Unless the peace officer (or in this case, Ranger) indicates you are free to go, you must remain on the scene for such time as to allow a reasonable amount of time to conclude the "investigation." This gives a lot of latitude to the Ranger in this situation and it's not the right of the detainee to just end the stop and walk away.
I believe if you walk away from a Terry Stop, things get escalated and now you're subject to arrest due to obstruction. At this point, you can imagine that all sorts of red flags start going up when a detainee refuses to cooperate and leaves the scene.
At this point, the means to which an officer may use force to detain you is beyond my knowledge, but I imagine it occupies some "ladder" system (verbal commands-->physical restraint-->chemicals-->baton).
In my opinion, the dog-walker screwed this one up big time (by refusing to remain detained and thereby refusing a lawful order) and the Ranger may well have been operating within a range of accepted procedures governing the conduct of a Terry Stop.
Of course, this relies on the state of thefacts as presented. A more clear picture of the encounter may change my opinion.
"Such as letting the person walk away and saving the department 6 figures in legal and settlement fees."
So why not let bank robbers or child molesters walk away?
I think the leash law is idiotic, but if you don't cooperate with law enforcement, you suffer the consequences.
For the comfort and safety of living in a community don't we give law enforcement the power to enforce the laws of that community?
"So why not let bank robbers or child molesters walk away?"
Wow Steve, are you actually equating dog walkers with bank robbers and child molesters? The law wisely recognizes different degrees of law breaking.
Read the linked article then decide who is the greater lawbreaker in this case:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/28/BA811BAG5G.DTL
Ian, according to what I read in the Chronicle, the NPS manual says something different -
"An online National Park Service manual says rangers may use force only to defend themselves or others, to make an arrest, to control resisting, threatening or violent suspects, or to disperse a threatening crowd."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/02/BALP1N1SVV.DTL
The ranger was trying to make an arrest, so according to the manual, the ranger was justified in what she was doing. The reference to bank robbers and child molesters was taking things to an illogical extreme, but the point I was trying (and maybe failed) to make was more about the absurdity of allowing people to avoid arrest by simply refusing to cooperate with law enforcement.
BTW - the Ninth Circuit is evil and is a direct threat to American liberty. If you watched Fox and listened to Rush & Hannity 24/7 like I do, you'd know that.
I hope they show this on COPS. The guy sounds like the dumb-asses on TV trying to run from the cops.
I feel sorry for people who this they can resist an officer. They end up beat up, tasered or dead like Oscar Grant.
Be smart people.
I do not see the dog walker as a victim. Instead of complying with lawful orders he escalated the situation in an attempt to show the officer that he was in control not her. He was wrong from the start an turned what would have been a warning into a nasty take down and a night in jail.
who knew that walking your dog could turn you into a criminal. Next, eating your picnic lunch in a park where there is no place to wash- could get you arrested. And people wonder why I don't leave my home. My culture is being attacked. To Hell with these stupid laws.
Wow do some people really believe it's okay to disobey law enforcement? Do you teach your kids this? That's how people end up dead.
Stupid laws encroaching on civil liberties. Next, a step outside your property could cost you heavily by getting arrested and jail time. How you ask? Trust me, these lawmakers will think of something. That is how fucking ridiculous these laws are becoming. You could be breaking the law and not even know it. Most laws are not enforced. So for all you law abiding citizens that just sit on your fat ass and bark "Wow do some people really believe it's okay to disobey law enforcement? Do you teach your kids this? That's how people end up dead." Wait until it happens to you, you will be singing a different tune.
Post a Comment