Re: Ranger uses stun gun on man walking dogs off-leash

Ranger uses stun gun on man walking dogs off-leash

MONTARA, Calif. -- A man walking his dogs in a federal park was hit with a stun gun and arrested by a park ranger who accused him of not putting a leash on the animals and giving a false name, astonishing passers-by who say the reaction was excessive.



Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/31/4227400/ranger-uses-stun-gun-on-man-walking.html#storylink=cpy













Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/31/4227400/ranger-uses-stun-gun-on-man-walking.html#storylink=cpy

---

The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

Gee.... give a law enforcement ranger a fake name and try to run away.... uh.... that's asking for trouble.

The ranger was just trying to help enforce the rule of walking pets on leashes but the person wouldn't cooperate and escalated the situation I've seen pets off leash chase animals in yosemite causing disturbances so the rule is reasonable

There is an issue of proportion here and whether this was disproportionate response. In some ways, this is a version of a high speed chase to enforce a minor traffic violation. It is certainly not appropriate to violate leash laws but one has to wonder about the degree of force chosen. Say the Ranger used a club and broke an arm or leg; what if the Ranger used her firearm? At some point, force is excessive. Does this level of response mean that if someone takes a parking ticket off their windshield and throws it on the ground, they can be shocked with a Taser and arrested? I suspect, since the ranger's name was not released the whole issue is under investigation and that there are going to be some consequences here.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

I think there's also a political headache associated with this, apart from whether the actual incident is found by investigation to be reasonable or otherwise.

The NPS had been trying for a very long time to get leash regulations for dogs in GGNRA, particularly Ocean Beach, due in part to the Snowy Plover's endangered status and in part due to use conflicts with other visitors. There has been, and remains, substantial community objections, primarily from people who had grown accustomed to taking their pets off-leash on Ocean Beach (hope I represented the disputes fairly). The leash requirement is relatively recent, considering the amount of time consumed in getting that requirement finalized. I'm quite sure this is about the last thing in the world the GGNRA wanted to see.

I think a lot of lawyers are going to be absurdly compensated before this is over.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2012 07:59PM by ttilley.

Quote
Frank Furter
There is an issue of proportion here and whether this was disproportionate response. In some ways, this is a version of a high speed chase to enforce a minor traffic violation. It is certainly not appropriate to violate leash laws but one has to wonder about the degree of force chosen. Say the Ranger used a club and broke an arm or leg; what if the Ranger used her firearm? At some point, force is excessive. Does this level of response mean that if someone takes a parking ticket off their windshield and throws it on the ground, they can be shocked with a Taser and arrested? I suspect, since the ranger's name was not released the whole issue is under investigation and that there are going to be some consequences here.

The taser was not used to enforce the leash law. Once the person gave false information and then tried to run the minor infraction became irrelevant.

Quote
Dave

Quote
Frank Furter
There is an issue of proportion here and whether this was disproportionate response. In some ways, this is a version of a high speed chase to enforce a minor traffic violation. It is certainly not appropriate to violate leash laws but one has to wonder about the degree of force chosen. Say the Ranger used a club and broke an arm or leg; what if the Ranger used her firearm? At some point, force is excessive. Does this level of response mean that if someone takes a parking ticket off their windshield and throws it on the ground, they can be shocked with a Taser and arrested? I suspect, since the ranger's name was not released the whole issue is under investigation and that there are going to be some consequences here.

The taser was not used to enforce the leash law. Once the person gave false information and then tried to run the minor infraction became irrelevant.

I don't think we should suspend judgment for every action by every law enforcement officer, just because they have certain powers. TASER policies typically allow use to prevent potential injury to officer or subject. I don't see any threat here. Restraint of a fleeing suspect needs to be put in context. If the officer shot the dogwalker, would that have been appropriate? If not a firearm, what level of action is appropriate? I don't know if we are required, when not under oath or arrest, to be absolutely truthful or compliant in all ways with every police order. We are certainly not required in public to carry identification. It is entirely possible that the man was trying to round up his dogs when he walked away. Legal experts can clarify those issues and details. Nevertheless, unless there is a lot of missing information, this situation is looks like excessive force to me even if there was some perceived violation beyond the leash issue. Imagine the uproar if a male police officer used a TASER in this situation against a female!

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Quote
Frank Furter

I don't think we should suspend judgment for every action by every law enforcement officer, just because they have certain powers. TASER policies typically allow use to prevent potential injury to officer or subject. I don't see any threat here. Restraint of a fleeing suspect needs to be put in context. If the officer shot the dogwalker, would that have been appropriate? If not a firearm, what level of action is appropriate? I don't know if we are required, when not under oath or arrest, to be absolutely truthful or compliant in all ways with every police order. We are certainly not required in public to carry identification. It is entirely possible that the man was trying to round up his dogs when he walked away. Legal experts can clarify those issues and details. Nevertheless, unless there is a lot of missing information, this situation is looks like excessive force to me even if there was some perceived violation beyond the leash issue. Imagine the uproar if a male police officer used a TASER in this situation against a female!

Why are you trying to build strawmen here? The officier didn't use her firearm, she didn't use a club, nor break any bones of the suspect. She did what was needed to take the suspect into custody. Believe it or not, but one is supposed to obey a law enforcement officer's orders when they're issuing you a citation. If one feels an officier violated their rights while issuing a citation, they can have a judge sort it out in court.

I also wonder if possibly the size of the male suspect versus the size of the woman officer played a part in her using a taser to subdue the suspect. A large male or large female officer might have been able to subdue the suspect just by their own physical strength and the use of a taser wouldn't have been necessary.

Don't blame the officier for the actions of the suspect that led to the escalation of the incident.

---

Quote
plawrence

Quote
Frank Furter

I don't think we should suspend judgment for every action by every law enforcement officer, just because they have certain powers. TASER policies typically allow use to prevent potential injury to officer or subject. I don't see any threat here. Restraint of a fleeing suspect needs to be put in context. If the officer shot the dogwalker, would that have been appropriate? If not a firearm, what level of action is appropriate? I don't know if we are required, when not under oath or arrest, to be absolutely truthful or compliant in all ways with every police order. We are certainly not required in public to carry identification. It is entirely possible that the man was trying to round up his dogs when he walked away. Legal experts can clarify those issues and details. Nevertheless, unless there is a lot of missing information, this situation is looks like excessive force to me even if there was some perceived violation beyond the leash issue. Imagine the uproar if a male police officer used a TASER in this situation against a female!

Why are you trying to build strawmen here? The officier didn't use her firearm, she didn't use a club, nor break any bones of the suspect. She did what was needed to take the suspect into custody. ...

There are no "strawmen" here-- merely examples to suggest that there is a spectrum of response and
at some point, too much force can be used. How much force is appropriate under the circumstances ?

This is only a news story because most people are surprised by the actions of the police officer under the circumstances. Not infrequently, the attempt to restrain an individual can result in injury or death so the circumstances of the situation have to be a factor in the escalation of the police action and mere failure to comply with a police command may not be sufficient justification for extreme force. Police do not have absolute power and we are not obligated to answer every question or follow every command. For example:

Take a look at :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2012 07:19AM by Frank Furter.

Quote
Frank Furter
I don't think we should suspend judgment for every action by every law enforcement officer, just because they have certain powers.

Nor should we automatically thing bad of the officer, especially without the whole story.

Quote

TASER policies typically allow use to prevent potential injury to officer or subject. I don't see any threat here. Restraint of a fleeing suspect needs to be put in context.

Yes, it does. Why did the miscreant lie to the officer and why did they try to run?

Quote

If the officer shot the dogwalker, would that have been appropriate?

The officer did not taser a dog walker. She tasered someone trying to flee and someone that gave false information.

Quote

If not a firearm, what level of action is appropriate? I don't know if we are required, when not under oath or arrest, to be absolutely truthful or compliant in all ways with every police order. We are certainly not required in public to carry identification. It is entirely possible that the man was trying to round up his dogs when he walked away. Legal experts can clarify those issues and details. Nevertheless, unless there is a lot of missing information, this situation is looks like excessive force to me even if there was some perceived violation beyond the leash issue. Imagine the uproar if a male police officer used a TASER in this situation against a female!

Many questions need to be asked and answered. Since we do not have the whole story, we can't ask, nor answer, the appropriate questions.

By the way, cops and I do not get along. I'm not automatically defending the cop in any way. I'm not automatically judging either.

Quote

Quote

If the officer shot the dogwalker, would that have been appropriate?

The officer did not taser a dog walker. She tasered someone trying to flee and someone that gave false information.

The whole sequence cannot be parsed that way. Otherwise if you are going to make that argument, you are suggesting that "false" information and terminating a conversation with a police officer solely is sufficient provocation to be shocked. I can postulate lots of situations where there could have been false information and someone who decided to leave the scene of conversation with a ranger--- someone with language problems, intoxication, hearing or psychiatric problems, urgent bowel or urinary needs, etc... LEO are not omniscient and personally, if I decided that an order of a LEO endangered me or others, I would not hesitate to disobey it. Furthermore, in this case, the initial issue and subsequent actions were not violent crimes or even felonies. Therefore, it is not surprising that many people consider the TASER use to be unwarranted in this scenario.

There are many situations where the actions of police are seen as disproportionate and, while intended to be conscientious law enforcement, are not seen by society as appropriate--- high speed vehicle chases that endanger innocents, multiple officer restraint events where the subject is suffocated, etc. As mentioned in another post in this thread, there is no carte blanche for police action and use of a TASER is a very serious action that must be used appropriately. Here is a suggested TASER policy from the Internet that treats TASER use very seriously:

http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/Knowledgebase.nsf/0/B1771739182D96E085256D550047F938

Perhaps instead of calling for medical assistance AFTER the TASER, she should have called for backup BEFORE the TASER use.


Here is the NPS Press Release, which suggests to me that the event was not considered routine and will be investigated further. It seem unlikely that NPS educating the public commonly leads to TASER use (although it is likely that a lot fewer dogs will be off lease in the near future). Finally, I don't know what "educational contact" means-- it sounds like the Ranger had decided to cite the individual, not merely inform or converse. What role does a "stop and identify" interaction have to do with "educating"? Does the NPS check ID on everyone they are "educating"?

http://www.nps.gov/goga/parknews/law-enforcement-incident-in-rancho-corral-de-tierra.htm

Golden Gate National Recreation Area shares the general public's concern over the unfortunate incident between a National Park Service law enforcement ranger and a man walking his dog off leash at Rancho Corral de Tierra, in San Mateo County, on Sunday, January 29, 2012.As is standard practice, the park has initiated a review of the incident, which will be concluded in the next two weeks.At that time, another statement will be released.

According to the information available to the park at this point, the incident began as a routine educational contact about the National Park Service rules on dog walking.The incident developed into a more serious law enforcement situation when the person being contacted provided false information to the ranger, and refused to heed repeated orders to remain at the scene while the ranger was in contact with the park dispatch center to confirm his identity.

In December 2011, Rancho Corral de Tierra came under the management of the National Park Service. Golden Gate National Recreation Area will continue to work hard to build close partnerships with the existing users of, and the communities that surround, Rancho Corral de Tierra.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2012 08:34PM by Frank Furter.

Quote
Frank Furter

Quote

Quote

If the officer shot the dogwalker, would that have been appropriate?

The officer did not taser a dog walker. She tasered someone trying to flee and someone that gave false information.

The whole sequence cannot be parsed that way.

My point was that the person cannot be described as just a "dog walker." Obviously there was more going on then just someone walking a dog.

Quote

Otherwise if you are going to make that argument, you are suggesting that "false" information and terminating a conversation with a police officer solely is sufficient provocation to be shocked.

I made no such argument, and the miscreant did not just "terminate a conversation," he ran a way. He tried to flee the scene. There is much more to this story than just walking a dog.

Quote
Dave

Quote
Frank Furter

Quote

Quote

If the officer shot the dogwalker, would that have been appropriate?

The officer did not taser a dog walker. She tasered someone trying to flee and someone that gave false information.

The whole sequence cannot be parsed that way.

My point was that the person cannot be described as just a "dog walker." Obviously there was more going on then just someone walking a dog.

Quote

Otherwise if you are going to make that argument, you are suggesting that "false" information and terminating a conversation with a police officer solely is sufficient provocation to be shocked.

I made no such argument, and the miscreant did not just "terminate a conversation," he ran a way. He tried to flee the scene. There is much more to this story than just walking a dog.

The details remain to be clarified, but so far as I can tell, even in the most extreme portray of a dog walker who could not be identified and perhaps insulted the officer and chose to run (it that even happened), I do not see justification of extreme force. However, consider this information:

see http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Tasered-Dog-Walker-Case-Gets-Federal-Attention-138565219.html

Quote

from news report:

Babcock said the man the ranger was citing had already leashed his dogs and provided the ranger with all his personal information. According to Babcock, the dog owner repeatedly asked why he was being detained, and eventually told the ranger to cite him or he was going to walk away. "He started to walk away and she told him that she would Tase him if he walked another step," Babcock said, adding that the man turned and the ranger deployed her Taser, causing the man to fall to the ground.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Quote
Frank Furter
The details remain to be clarified, but so far as I can tell, even in the most extreme portray of a dog walker who could not be identified and perhaps insulted the officer and chose to run (it that even happened), I do not see justification of extreme force.

I'm not defending the officers actions. I'm not defending the perpetrator either. If one wants to call him a "dog walker" they must preface that with "illegal." He was an illegal dog walker that broke another law by giving false information to a police officer and borke another law by fleeing the scene of a crime. He is by no means just an innocent dog walker accosted by a police officer.

Quote

from news report:

Babcock said the man the ranger was citing had already leashed his dogs and provided the ranger with all his personal information. According to Babcock, the dog owner repeatedly asked why he was being detained, and eventually told the ranger to cite him or he was going to walk away. "He started to walk away and she told him that she would Tase him if he walked another step," Babcock said, adding that the man turned and the ranger deployed her Taser, causing the man to fall to the ground.

He should not have walked away. He should not have been illegally walking his dogs off leash.

I'd say that BOTH are equally guilty of bad behavior.

Quote
Dave

I'd say that BOTH are equally guilty of bad behavior.

In reality, the police are held to a higher standard than park visitors and, although Rangers are human, we expect 100% professional behavior and measured appropriate responses. I doubt that we will ever hear the entire story or find out exactly what occurred as both sides are contacting lawyers, trying to spin the facts, and trying to create justifications after the fact. There is likely a backstory to the behavior of both individuals that contributed to the drama and that information will likely never come out (inexperience, anger management issues, personal problems, difficulty with authority, insecurity, ignorance of weapons policy, etc.).

The lesson from this case, and from the Amadou Diallo case, is that it is dangerous to act in way deemed suspicious or uncooperative by law enforcement whether in a lawful situation or after a trivial infraction.

I find it strange that we are not required to carry ID, yet the police can require identification and have a mechanism to determine if stated ID is correct.

I find it strange that the NPS describes the interaction as "educational", when all reports indicate that it was a law enforcement action.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Quote
Frank Furter
I find it strange that we are not required to carry ID, yet the police can require identification and have a mechanism to determine if stated ID is correct.

The only case where one is absolutely required to carry an ID is when driving. Any driver must have a driver license in the vehicle, although it doesn't have to be photo ID. It could be a temporary license (i.e. a printout). If someone is to be cited or arrested and has no ID, I've heard of various things happening. Some cops feel it's low risk and might even take someone home to get ID. I think the standard procedure is to take someone to a police station and identify the person there.

We don't have a national ID in the US. Even in other countries where they do, people go to the beach and leave their ID elsewhere.

The only legal requirement I know for ID in the US to be on the street is that permanent residents at least 18 must carry their green cards with them. It's pretty much never enforced. I think the maximum penalty is maybe up to $200 and 30 days in a federal pokey. Arizona passed an immigration law that made it a state misdemeanor with up to a year in jail and something like a $2000 fine. That part of the law was suspended by the Feds until they get around to judging its legality. Frankly I don't think that will hold up, since immigration matters are considered strictly the duty of the federal government.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f1903a4107083210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f1903a4107083210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD

Quote

A green card is issued to all permanent residents as proof that they are authorized to live and work in the United States. If you are a permanent resident age 18 or older, you are required to have a valid green card in your possession at all times.

Quote
Frank Furter
According to the information available to the park at this point, the incident began as a routine educational contact about the National Park Service rules on dog walking.The incident developed into a more serious law enforcement situation when the person being contacted provided false information to the ranger, and refused to heed repeated orders to remain at the scene while the ranger was in contact with the park dispatch center to confirm his identity.

In December 2011, Rancho Corral de Tierra came under the management of the National Park Service. Golden Gate National Recreation Area will continue to work hard to build close partnerships with the existing users of, and the communities that surround, Rancho Corral de Tierra.

I think that's the key. I've been following the reports on the incident, and even the NPS spokesman said that they're primarily trying to conduct educational outreach right now rather than hand out tickets. He said they routinely ask people for their names simply as a matter of course. They'd ask for names if it's an interpretive park ranger or a park volunteer. I've been to several ranger walks where an interpretive park ranger ask a kid "So what's your name. Oh, my name is <---->." So apparently she's just casually asking his name, he flippantly gives her a random fake name (and how does she know), and she goes into law enforcement mode (i.e. I'm suspicious now). She could have easily just blown it off as this guy being a joker.

There were witnesses. This guy leashed his dog almost immediately. He repeatedly asked if he was being cited/arrested or if he was being detained. The ranger refused to tell him that he was being arrested/cited or detained. To me that's not reasonable. Apparently he walked away because she didn't inform him that he was being detained. She simply barked orders and said she would hit him with a Taser if he didn't turn around.

In addition to that, it's unclear whether or not he could be considered to have "given a false name to a peace officer", which would be a violation of state law. California law has nuances about who is and is not considered a "peace officer". Federal law enforcement (even FBI) aren't considered "peace officers" unless they're making arrests or handing out citations. When she was asking his name, it wasn't clear that she was asking so in her capacity as a law enforcement officer or as a "park ranger".

I hope she has a good lawyer. There's a solid precedent with Bryan v. McPherson. which went to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals - that law enforcement that deploys unreasonable force can be held personally liable even if their departments have qualified immunity. Brian McPherson was a Coranado Police officer who used his Taser against a strange acting but otherwise nonviolent driver who he pulled over for a seatbelt violation. He got out of his car and started acting strangely. He was wearing only boxer shorts, so it was apparent that he had no weapons. Officer McPherson then shot him with his Taser, causing him to fall to the ground, cracking four of his teeth as well as causing facial wounds. After he was transported to a hospital, one of the Taser barbs had to be surgically removed from his skin.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/12/28/08-55622.pdf

Quote
y_p_w
...There were witnesses. ...

That's part of the problem. You can take ten eye witnesses and get 12 different stories. The way the witnesses are questioned can effect the outcome. In this case sympathy for the "victim" and distrust of authority may cloud their view of what actually happened. Or, maybe not. That's why lawyers get so rich.

http://www.hmbreview.com/news/sheriff-considers-tasers-high-level-force/article_da3e4314-52be-11e1-9a31-0019bb2963f4.html

The use of a Taser by a National Park Service ranger last week would likely be considered excessive force according to rules followed by the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office.....

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Anyone heard any follow-up from the Ranger-dog walker-taser incident?

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Quote
Frank Furter

Anyone heard any follow-up from the Ranger-dog walker-taser incident?

Not yet.

Quote
Frank Furter
Anyone heard any follow-up from the Ranger-dog walker-taser incident?

I didn't see the articles about this going to trial, but there's been a verdict via a bench trial. Hesterberg was awarded $50,000 in compensatory and pain/suffering damages by a federal judge. I believe this is a personal liability of the arresting officer. The judge categorized the use of the Taser as an intrusion on his Fourth Amendment rights (to be "secure in their persons" I suppose) due to the "almost imperceptibly low government interest in apprehending Hesterberg".

http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/10/09/72315.htm

Also - the fake name he gave was "Gary Jones".

Quote
Frank Furter
Here is the NPS Press Release, which suggests to me that the event was not considered routine and will be investigated further. It seem unlikely that NPS educating the public commonly leads to TASER use (although it is likely that a lot fewer dogs will be off lease in the near future). Finally, I don't know what "educational contact" means-- it sounds like the Ranger had decided to cite the individual, not merely inform or converse. What role does a "stop and identify" interaction have to do with "educating"? Does the NPS check ID on everyone they are "educating"?

http://www.nps.gov/goga/parknews/law-enforcement-incident-in-rancho-corral-de-tierra.htm

Golden Gate National Recreation Area shares the general public's concern over the unfortunate incident between a National Park Service law enforcement ranger and a man walking his dog off leash at Rancho Corral de Tierra, in San Mateo County, on Sunday, January 29, 2012.As is standard practice, the park has initiated a review of the incident, which will be concluded in the next two weeks.At that time, another statement will be released.

According to the information available to the park at this point, the incident began as a routine educational contact about the National Park Service rules on dog walking.The incident developed into a more serious law enforcement situation when the person being contacted provided false information to the ranger, and refused to heed repeated orders to remain at the scene while the ranger was in contact with the park dispatch center to confirm his identity.

What's going on there is that since NPS took over the area, they want to enforce their leash rules when those in the area have been used to it being an off-leash dog walking area for as long as anyone remembers. Recently they've put up a limited number of signs, but not at every entrance to the area.

What "educational contact" means is that NPS personnel are going out and finding dog walkers there with an intent to inform them of the new regs. They apparently will ask those with off-leash dogs to leash them, which this guy apparently did. Apparently the routine (whether it's an LE ranger or not) is also to ask for someone's name just to break the ice. Well apparently this LE ranger got suspicious (the name given has been rumored to be off the wall) which turned into a case where she's calling this in and they're arguing. It all started with what was supposed to be a friendly conversation.

Again, this is not going to turn out well for her. This guy is clamming up now, and I wouldn't be surprised if he hasn't already hired a personal injury attorney who told him not to talk to the press. If this goes to a jury, just imagine the description of a guy who showed no tendency toward violence, a LE officer who never stated that he was being arrested/cited or was under investigation, and a shot in the back with a Taser of a guy calmly walking away. Anyone really thinks that's an appropriate use of a Taser? From the witness accounts, he was looking at other people wondering what authority she had to order him around when she wouldn't even tell him that he was being detained or arrested.

Now what he probably should have done is not tell her his name. It wasn't going to be an arrest or citation, but turned into something bigger. I'm not even so sure that his giving her a fake name was necessarily illegal given the circumstances and the particulars of California law.

Quote
y_p_w
..... Anyone really thinks that's an appropriate use of a Taser?

Sure, the public tends to support the actions of law enforcement unquestioningly. As far back as the Civil Rights Movement at least, police actions, regardless how excessive have been deemed justified by many if not most of the population.

Quote

From the witness accounts, he was looking at other people wondering what authority she had to order him around when she wouldn't even tell him that he was being detained or arrested. Now what he probably should have done is not tell her his name. It wasn't going to be an arrest or citation, but turned into something bigger. I'm not even so sure that his giving her a fake name was necessarily illegal given the circumstances and the particulars of California law.

This is an interesting constitutional vs practical law enforcement question. Perhaps not providing a correct and verifiable identification may result in a charge of disorderly conduct and justify someone being placed under arrest.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Quote
marmot
I've seen pets off leash chase animals in yosemite causing disturbances so the rule is reasonable

I had a dog on a leash in Yosemite come up and bite me in the calf. Its owner didn't seem to care.

Quote
eeek

Quote
marmot
I've seen pets off leash chase animals in yosemite causing disturbances so the rule is reasonable

I had a dog on a leash in Yosemite come up and bite me in the calf. Its owner didn't seem to care.

It MUST have been your fault somehow. MUST have!

The article link no longer works.

Quote
hotrod4x5
The article link no longer works.

It's apparently been wiped from their archives. I think it might have been an AP wire store, so you could probably find it somewhere else searching for "ranger stun gun montara".

Here are some articles on the subject:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/31/BA921N0LQT.DTL
http://blog.sfgate.com/cwnevius/2012/02/02/ranger-stun-guns-dog-walker-you-asked-for-it/
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/02/BALP1N1SVV.DTL
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/04/BAG11N299L.DTL

http://www.hmbreview.com/news/parks-officials-prepare-taser-report-for-release/article_688a4118-9acc-11e1-a0dc-0019bb2963f4.html

The National Park Service is still preparing a federal report dealing with a ranger’s use of an electric Taser on a dog walker at the Rancho Corral de Tierra property near Montara in January. Earlier, officials indicated the report would be released this week.

The 280-page report on the incident is expected to determine whether the Golden Gate National Recreation Area ranger used the proper level of force in dealing with a man who was being uncooperative. The report has been compiled by the Office of Professional Responsibility within the U.S. Department of the Interior, which manages the National Park Service....

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan