• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ranger zaps off-leash dog walker with shock weapon

American said:
Link


You know, whether this guy was lying or not, this is clearly an excessive use of force. I think the ranger should go through tasering for a solid 10 minutes for this.
Click to expand...

Why did he give a false name? Why was it an issue that his dogs were off a leash - it seems they were following him so they weren't causing problems :shrug:

Was he doing something wrong to be questioned to begin with?
 
MaggieD said:
Refusing to give your name to a police officer = ASS.

I wish you well on the street with your thought that you have to agree with the copper that it's a good reason in order for him to legally detain you.
Click to expand...

A police officer has to have a reason to detain someone. Having a badge does not give anyone the authority to simply go about hassling innocent civilians for no reason at all.

If, in the case described in the OP, the officer had a legitimate reason to be bothering the civilian, she ought to have stated it. If she had no reason, then she shouldn't have been bothering him, and he had every right to walk away. Lacking any reason to be detaining him, her attempt to do so amounted to kidnapping—a criminal act. Her use of her taser against him was an assault—also a criminal act.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Why did he give a false name? Why was it an issue that his dogs were off a leash - it seems they were following him so they weren't causing problems :shrug:

Was he doing something wrong to be questioned to begin with?
Click to expand...

Because the park was now under the auspices of a different entity and the rules had changed from "no leash required" to "leash required." I can picture a whole bunch of smart alecky responses that might escalate a situation with the LEO. Since the article said he had no identification on him and said he lied about his name, I'm assuming he gave some smart-assed name like Mickey Mouse and then turned to walk away. We don't have all the facts, obviously.

It sure sounds like she over-reacted to me. But how should an officer who has every right to detain someone for questioning (a right she definitely had, since the guy was arrested and charged) handle it when a guy just turns and walks away? As Grip said, a .45 to the kneecap? Should she try to wrestle him to the ground? Should she just forget about it? That's not how they're trained.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
A police officer has to have a reason to detain someone. Having a badge does not give anyone the authority to simply go about hassling innocent civilians for no reason at all.

If, in the case described in the OP, the officer had a legitimate reason to be bothering the civilian, she ought to have stated it. If she had no reason, then she shouldn't have been bothering him, and he had every right to walk away. Lacking any reason to be detaining him, her attempt to do so amounted to kidnapping—a criminal act. Her use of her taser against him was an assault—also a criminal act.
Click to expand...

In court you'll find the officer is given the benefit of a doubt, especially in accessing a situation. If there's evidence or witness corroboration of abuse of authority then the officer and the force is liable.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
A police officer has to have a reason to detain someone. Having a badge does not give anyone the authority to simply go about hassling innocent civilians for no reason at all.

If, in the case described in the OP, the officer had a legitimate reason to be bothering the civilian, she ought to have stated it. If she had no reason, then she shouldn't have been bothering him, and he had every right to walk away. Lacking any reason to be detaining him, her attempt to do so amounted to kidnapping—a criminal act. Her use of her taser against him was an assault—also a criminal act.
Click to expand...

He was arrested. That says everything.

Hesterberg, whose age was not available, was arrested on suspicion of failing to obey a lawful order, having dogs off-leash and knowingly providing false information, Levitt said.

Read more: Ranger zaps off-leash dog walker with shock weapon
Click to expand...
 
MaggieD said:
Should she try to wrestle him to the ground? Should she just forget about it? That's not how they're trained.
Click to expand...

Actually taking down a suspect by wrestling them to the ground is EXACTLY how they are trained. I'd like to see how big the guy was compared to her, but if they were comparable in size, I think it was overkill. Only time will tell.
 
MaggieD said:
Well, it does seem excessive. But what should she have done to detain him? Or should she have just let him go? We are a nation that lives by the rule of law. If a copper detains you, you listen. If you don't? Well, I guess sometimes you get tazed. No sympathy here.
Click to expand...


Was the bitch alone, that's my question. I doubt it. She made a bad decision, and I hope she loses her job over it.
 
MaggieD said:
Because the park was now under the auspices of a different entity and the rules had changed from "no leash required" to "leash required." I can picture a whole bunch of smart alecky responses that might escalate a situation with the LEO. Since the article said he had no identification on him and said he lied about his name, I'm assuming he gave some smart-assed name like Mickey Mouse and then turned to walk away. We don't have all the facts, obviously.

It sure sounds like she over-reacted to me. But how should an officer who has every right to detain someone for questioning (a right she definitely had, since the guy was arrested and charged) handle it when a guy just turns and walks away? As Grip said, a .45 to the kneecap? Should she try to wrestle him to the ground? Should she just forget about it? That's not how they're trained.
Click to expand...

I see where this is going, it's because she's a woman that you're working so hard to protect her. I didn't realize you were that shallow. Now that I do, I will understand your responses better from now on. Thanks.
 
American said:
I see where this is going, it's because she's a woman that you're working so hard to protect her. I didn't realize you were that shallow. Now that I do, I will understand your responses better from now on. Thanks.
Click to expand...

You're welcome, American.
 
Well I would call myself a feminist, and I do not defend this ranger's actions. You taser someone when they are being violent or resisting arrest. You don't taser them as a matter of compliance.

Excessive use of force. As usual.
 
Temporal said:
Well I would call myself a feminist, and I do not defend this ranger's actions. You taser someone when they are being violent or resisting arrest. You don't taser them as a matter of compliance.

Excessive use of force. As usual.
Click to expand...

I wish someone who says this would tell me what other action a LEO should take if someone doesn't comply with a lawful order...
 
American said:
Link


You know, whether this guy was lying or not, this is clearly an excessive use of force. I think the ranger should go through tasering for a solid 10 minutes for this.
Click to expand...

In America, one does not have the right to walk around without your papers.
 
Authority figures in this nation have totally forgotten their place, which is not surprising at all, given the propensity of Americans to surrender their liberty to an increasingly totalitarian government. We are becoming a servile people.

Brian
 
I'm not follwoing - at all - the 'feminist' lilt, here.

Who cares if she was a man or a woman - I would respond in kind of the perp was a male and the aggressor was a female. :shrug:

Facing lone males in the park is probably more common than facing lone females. If this female parkranger is SO uncomfortable with men that this is how she handles situations one on one with men then she needs to find a different job. She's obviously not cut out of Ranger cloth :shrug: I thought they were suppose ot be rugged and capable - not feeble and fearful.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I'm not follwoing - at all - the 'feminist' lilt, here.

Who cares if she was a man or a woman - I would respond in kind of the perp was a male and the aggressor was a female. :shrug:

Facing lone males in the park is probably more common than facing lone females. If this female parkranger is SO uncomfortable with men that this is how she handles situations one on one with men then she needs to find a different job. She's obviously not cut out of Ranger cloth :shrug: I thought they were suppose ot be rugged and capable - not feeble and fearful.
Click to expand...

they also have to be very good at keeping picnic baskets from bear duo's
 
Higgins86 said:
they also have to be very good at keeping picnic baskets from bear duo's
Click to expand...

Yes - this too . . . so I don't think she's hacking it very well. Can't deal with an unarmed dude with some small dogs on a walk? Nevermind coyotes and blackbears, eh?

Geesh.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Yes - this too . . . so I don't think she's hacking it very well. Can't deal with an unarmed dude with some small dogs on a walk? Nevermind coyotes and blackbears, eh?

Geesh.
Click to expand...


just not cutting the mustard! She will probably end up as a mall cop
 
American said:
Link


You know, whether this guy was lying or not, this is clearly an excessive use of force. I think the ranger should go through tasering for a solid 10 minutes for this.
Click to expand...

Quite possible...but it's hard to differentiate without knowing all the facts. None of us were there...lets not be to damn quick to pass judgement.

No TASERS means fists and batons. Those implements usually do result in injuries and give them fodder for their agendas.
 
MaggieD said:
He was arrested. That says everything.
Click to expand...

Yes, he was arrested. By an officer who, according to the accounts of other witnesses, was acting in an abusive manner.

Yes, I guess that proves he was guilty of something, doesn't it? A corrupt, abusive, officer of the law wouldn't ever arrest someone who wasn't guilty, right?
 
MaggieD said:
I wish someone who says this would tell me what other action a LEO should take if someone doesn't comply with a lawful order...
Click to expand...

THERE WAS NO LAWFUL ORDER.

A “lawful order” would have included some rational attempt at an explanation as to why the subject was being detained, and why he should comply.

An officer of the law does not have the authority to just stop and harass anyone at random with no cause.
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
I wish someone who says this would tell me what other action a LEO should take if someone doesn't comply with a lawful order...
Click to expand...

You're out of the conversation because you're defending the ranger merely because she's a woman. You have zero credibility. I have just lost a ton of respect for you.
 
Last edited:
Higgins86 said:
just not cutting the mustard! She will probably end up as a mall cop
Click to expand...

She doesn't belong in any kind of “cop” job. This incident shows an excessive tendency to abuse whatever authority she might perceive herself to have. She needs to be in a job that doesn't give her the opportunity to engage in such abuses.
 
MaggieD said:
I wish someone who says this would tell me what other action a LEO should take if someone doesn't comply with a lawful order...
Click to expand...

Deciding whether or not to escalate the situation is always a choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom