• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

walk dogs without a leash, get tased bro

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
AHamick said:
Wow some of you are either extremely dense or didnt read the article

He WAS NOT tased for an unleashed dog. He gave a false name and tried to leave dispite orders to stay put.

Giving a false name to law enforcement is a crime and he attempted to flee and thus got tased.

Getting license plates doesnt do shit if it isnt his car and im sure some of you here would be chastising the ranger if this guy was a child molesting fugitive and made good his escape because the ranger simply let the whole thing go...

Quit with the "she tased him over an unleashed dog" nonsense already. His crime was giving a false name to law enforcement
Click to expand...

Read my prior post with quotes from a named witness and you get a different story. And how did the ranger know if he was giving a false name til after tasing him? The NPS Spokesman said the ranger was there to educate users of the new rule but I guess she assumed the guy was also a child molester.

Child molester = allowing little dogs to be off-leash?
 
Last edited:
AHamick said:
im sure some of you here would be chastising the ranger if this guy was a child molesting fugitive and made good his escape because the ranger simply let the whole thing go...
Click to expand...
Yeah, fugitive child molesters routinely walk their dogs in the park.
 
edro said:
Yeah, fugitive child molesters routinely walk their dogs in the park.
Click to expand...

Could've been out on parole and was using the dogs to attract kiddies. After they found the little broken bodies in the woods you would've been like, "Why wasn't he stopped for giving a false name when he was clearly breaking the law before that?"
He was. The system worked.
 
The facts:

dude broke law regardless if it was only changed a month prior.

dude may have gave a false name or not...dude still broke the law in the previous statement.

dude refused to stay put per the law enforcement official's request, whether or not he thought they were given the right to detain them.

dude got tazed bro!

You have two types of these people at dog parks. Those that don't want rules (tags, cleaning up poop, restraining their aggressive dog, listening to rangers or closed park sections), and those that appreciate the rules.

Whenever the rangers issue a ticket or ask someone to leave their is a small but vocal group (usually wannabe gang bangers and people that think they are Trump or Paris Hilton) getting all uppity. Some have even tried to start petitions to NOT have to pick up after their dogs.

They should taze them all.
 
Capt Caveman said:
Read my prior post with quotes from a named witness and you get a different story. And how did the ranger know if he was giving a false name til after tasing him? The NPS Spokesman said the ranger was there to educate users of the new rule but I guess she assumed the guy was also a child molester.

Child molester = allowing little dogs to be off-leash?
Click to expand...

Wow nice fail at reading comprehension.

First the eye witness clearly stated he was defiant and challenged the rangers authority to stop him. Breaking the law gives the ranger the authority to stop him.

Next he disobeyed lawful orders to stay put, thats called failure to obey a lawful order by a peace officer.

He also gave a false name (the ranger could have easily known this by info over her radio or in car computer) and then attempted to leave, now he is resisting arrest

Resist arrest =tased
 
HAHAHAHAHA I can't get enough of America. I most certainly do live in the best nation in the world! Military hazing results in a 30-day prison confinement and a demotion in rank, while walking a dog without a leash leads to getting tasered.
 
AHamick said:
Wow nice fail at reading comprehension.

First the eye witness clearly stated he was defiant and challenged the rangers authority to stop him. Breaking the law gives the ranger the authority to stop him.

Next he disobeyed lawful orders to stay put, thats called failure to obey a lawful order by a peace officer.

He also gave a false name (the ranger could have easily known this by info over her radio or in car computer) and then attempted to leave, now he is resisting arrest

Resist arrest =tased
Click to expand...

You mean this witness?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/30/BA921N0LQT.DTL

From a witness:

"It was really scary," said Michelle Babcock, who said she had seen the incident as she and her husband were walking their two border collies. "I just felt so bad for him."

Babcock said Hesterberg had repeatedly asked the ranger why he was being detained. She didn't answer him, Babcock said.

"He just tried to walk away. She never gave him a reason," Babcock said.

The ranger shot Hesterberg in the back with her shock weapon as he walked off, Babcock said.

"We were like in disbelief," she said. "It didn't make any sense."
Click to expand...

Or these witnesses?

http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2012/...tness-to-dog-walking-taser-incident-at-ggnra/

From this article, the dog owner actually complied and leashed his dog by the GGNRA's account but the ranger felt the need to do more than educate the owner.

http://www.hmbreview.com/news/witne...cle_02b264dc-4b86-11e1-b619-0019bb2963f4.html

In the GGNRA account, the ranger informed Hesterberg about the ban on loose dogs, and he complied, clipping a leash on his 13-pound rat terrier, “Jo-Jo.” Then things took a turn for the worse.

Witnesses say Hesterberg was told to wait while the ranger communicated on her radio. He repeatedly asked her why she was detaining him and if he was being cited. After a few minutes, he announced he was leaving and began to walk away, and the ranger grabbed him by the arm and ordered him again to stay put.

“We felt like he wasn’t doing anything,” observed Michelle Babcock, who witnessed the event while walking that afternoon. “The ranger was very rude — you could tell (the dog walker) wanted to be on his way, but she kept saying no.”
Click to expand...

Looks like an independent investigation will be made into the incident - Speier: Tasing of Peninsula dog walker may be 'excessive use of force'
 
Last edited:
I was referring to the witness in the original aritcle, but since you linked those:

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."

San Mateo County sheriff's deputies and paramedics then arrived and Hesterberg gave his real name, the park spokesman said.

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.
Click to expand...

Ranger told him to stay while she investigated his flase name, he refused and attempted to leave dispite her orders to stay, that can get you tased.

from the witness:

He just tried to walk away.
Click to expand...

They saw him attempt to leave while being ordered to stay put

or the other article:

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.
Click to expand...

Your articles explain pretty clearly why he was tased, he got tased for giving a false name and then trying to beat feet before he got into deeper trouble for lying to Law Enforcement.

from the witness in that article:

Well I think I came toward the end of what happened. It was getting to a point where he was getting a little irritable.
Click to expand...

So this witness admits he only observed the end tail of the incident, and doesnt have all of the facts but he did see this:

He was not moving in her direction at all, he was moving away.
Click to expand...

again, another witness stating he was attempting to leave the scene
 
Incorrect on it all AHamick.

He was not under arrest or braking any law because there was a grace period for the new laws to be enacted. Hence the reason for the park rangers all running around "informing" dog owners of the new required leash laws.

She had no right to either detain him or ask him for his identification. All she should do is tell the owner this, "From now on the dogs are required to be on a leash in that park, and that the by the date XX-XX-XXXX any owners without a leash on their dogs would receive a fine and these possible punishments...." That is ALL her job required of her regardless of the responses or mood from the man. Last time I checked we have a right in America to be ass-holes to each other, which includes law enforcement. That isn't against the law. Even if the guy immediately said to her face, "Shut the fuck up bitch" after he was informed and walked away there really was nothing she could legally do. Why? He's breaking no law at that point and is just being rude. Unless we are going to start locking people up for being rude in this country soon, her reaction was over the line.

Her asking for his name and detaining without being able to articulate WHY he was being detained is against the 4th amendment. Searching for information about him when she has no reason, such as the man committing a crime or suspected of doing so, is the definition of an illegal search and seizure. So the man is free to walk. Tazing him in the back afterwards is assault by her.

What's going to happen is the guy is going to get a lawyer and sue the shit out of the city/district that she works for. She'll get "disciplined" for her stupidity and go through a few remedial training courses during a leave of absence. After which she'll be back on duty and hopefully won't be pulling stupid power trips like this on other people.
 
AHamick said:
I was referring to the witness in the original aritcle, but since you linked those:



Ranger told him to stay while she investigated his flase name, he refused and attempted to leave dispite her orders to stay, that can get you tased.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, you just made that up. Witnesses have stated that the ranger did not tell the dog owner why he was being detained. And why even detain him or even ask for his name when he complied to her order to leash his dog? Basically, we have an overzealous ranger not following orders as the GGNRA spokesman has stated that rangers are supposed to educate dog owners of the new rule. The independent review will hopefully clarify all of this.

from the witness:



They saw him attempt to leave while being ordered to stay put

or the other article:



Your articles explain pretty clearly why he was tased, he got tased for giving a false name and then trying to beat feet before he got into deeper trouble for lying to Law Enforcement.

from the witness in that article:



So this witness admits he only observed the end tail of the incident, and doesnt have all of the facts but he did see this:



again, another witness stating he was attempting to leave the scene
Click to expand...

Actually, none of the articles say that is he was tased for giving a false name. He allegedly provided false information and was tased for leaving without being told why he was being detained.

Again, why even pursue the matter further when the dog owner leashed his dog? And what about the other witnesses that were present for the whole event? If someone is caught littering and after being told to pick-up and dispose of it properly, they do so, why continue to escalate the situation over a trivial matter?

edit - he was tased before the ranger knew that he was giving false identificaiton -> Tasered Dog Walker Case Gets Federal Attention

More information on the situation:

According to National Park Service's guidelines in NPS Director's Order 9:

"The only justifications for the use of force are:

To defend self
To defend others
To effect an arrest
To restrain or control violent, threatening, or resistive behavior, or to disperse an unlawful group."

According to a witness account published in the January 31, 2012 article by Camden Swita on Pacifica Patch:

“According to her written account, Hesterberg seemed confused as to why he was being held at the scene while the ranger contacted her “base”.

“After ten minutes the man asked her again to let him know why he could not leave or just cite him but she gave him no answer,” Babcock wrote. “My husband even asked her why she was not letting the man go on his way and she told him to stay out of it. Eventually, the man just started walking in our direction so he could go home. This really upset the park ranger and she told him to stop and that he could not leave. Once again the man asked why and just told her to give him a ticket or let him know if he was being arrested. Note that he had already leashed his two small dogs and was puzzled at the fact that he could not leave.”

Babcock also attests that Hesterberg said he had health problems before the ranger deployed her stun gun.

“Since she did not respond as to why he was being detained nor tell him the type of jurisdiction she had over him, he started to walk away and she told him that she would tase him if he walked another step. The man replied that he had a heart condition and to not Taser him as it could be life threatening,” Babcock wrote. “He gave her his back to look at me and my husband in disbelief to what was going on and the park ranger fired her Taser at him.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I have learned most of ATOT reads what they want to read in an article.

The perp got his. Next time they will COMPLY and LEASH their FUCKING mutts!
 
alkemyst said:
I have learned most of ATOT reads what they want to read in an article.

The perp got his. Next time they will COMPLY and LEASH their FUCKING mutts!
Click to expand...

You are a fucking idiot.

He complied with the leash law you fucknut.

He was walking around with unleashed dogs in an area that had JUST CHANGED THE LAWS. The rangers were there to inform people of the new changes to the laws in the area. The ranger told the dog owner of the new leash law and he leashed his animals on the spot. He tried to leave and she detained him further. California has NO STOP AND DETAIN laws pertaining to asking for identification. Since the man is committing no crime he is free to walk BY THE LETTER OF THE LAW AND THE 4TH AMENDMENT you retarded jizz chugger.

No wonder no one around here likes you idiot trolling ass. It's obvious the ranger is the one breaking multiple laws here and not the dog owner.
 
HumblePie said:
You are a fucking idiot.

He complied with the leash law you fucknut.

He was walking around with unleashed dogs in an area that had JUST CHANGED THE LAWS. The rangers were there to inform people of the new changes to the laws in the area. The ranger told the dog owner of the new leash law and he leashed his animals on the spot. He tried to leave and she detained him further. California has NO STOP AND DETAIN laws pertaining to asking for identification. Since the man is committing no crime he is free to walk BY THE LETTER OF THE LAW AND THE 4TH AMENDMENT you retarded jizz chugger.

No wonder no one around here likes you idiot trolling ass. It's obvious the ranger is the one breaking multiple laws here and not the dog owner.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link showing that the leash law was not in effect?
 
jlee said:
Do you have a link showing that the leash law was not in effect?
Click to expand...

They even stated that the park rangers were out to inform people of the new law changes. Which means there is a grace period. All new laws have a grace period if they are now contrary to previous established rules or laws. The length of that period is different per area and law, but it is usually established when the law is first drawn up. Obviously the grace period was still in effect because the articles all state the rangers were there to inform dog owners of the new law changes.
 
HumblePie said:
They even stated that the park rangers were out to inform people of the new law changes. Which means there is a grace period. All new laws have a grace period if they are now contrary to previous established rules or laws. The length of that period is different per area and law, but it is usually established when the law is first drawn up. Obviously the grace period was still in effect because the articles all state the rangers were there to inform dog owners of the new law changes.
Click to expand...

So that's a no, then.
 
jlee said:
Do you have a link showing that the leash law was not in effect?
Click to expand...

As an officer, if you caught a dog owner that didn't have their dog on their leash, would you pursue the issue after the dog owner complied to your instruction of leashing the dog?

And if you only could use force under these circumstanes:

According to National Park Service's guidelines in NPS Director's Order 9:

"The only justifications for the use of force are:

To defend self
To defend others
To effect an arrest
To restrain or control violent, threatening, or resistive behavior, or to disperse an unlawful group."
Click to expand...

would you have tasered the dog owner if he walked away when you can't detain him?
 
Last edited:
alkemyst said:
lol! grace period on new laws that had been in effect a month already.
Click to expand...

No you idiot. The law was NOT in effect. The transfer over to the National Park status was NOT COMPLETE yet. So the new rules and regulations are also NOT IN EFFECT. Thus the owner broke no laws even if he left his dogs unleashed, which he did not when he leashed them after being asked to do so.

You are a grade A moron.
 
One other thing. The man is 50 years old and stated to the ranger he had a heart condition according to eye witness reports. Which means her using a taser was USING DEADLY FORCE in an attempt to kill him. You do not taser old people with heart conditions. The man is lucky to be alive after that.
 
HumblePie said:
Found it according to this letter.

http://pacifica.patch.com/articles/...e-won-t-be-unreasonably-tasered#photo-9023518

The take over is still provisional and during a transition period according to the letter this person is writing to his Rep. Hence, the laws are not in full effect yet if true. I don't live in the area to either prove or deny this guy's claim. But it seems more than reasonable to me.
Click to expand...

I am writing to let you know I am extremely concerned about the where the female ranger tasered a man in the back for failing to have his dog on leash--a violation of a newly implemented rule as of December 2011 in that area.
Click to expand...

So, is it or is it not in effect?
 
jlee said:
So, is it or is it not in effect?
Click to expand...

The rule was posted in December. It is not in effect until the change over was complete. Thus the grace period. Thus the reason the rangers are out informing people of the new changes coming that will be enforceable when the change over is complete.
 
HumblePie said:
You are a fucking idiot.

you fucknut.

you retarded jizz chugger.

No wonder no one around here likes you idiot trolling ass.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I think I'm starting to understand your perspective, but could you use more caps? I think more caps would really help bridge the gap between our diverging viewpoints.
 
HumblePie said:
The rule was posted in December. It is not in effect until the change over was complete. Thus the grace period. Thus the reason the rangers are out informing people of the new changes coming that will be enforceable when the change over is complete.
Click to expand...

Except I still have to see anything anywhere conclusively saying there was in fact a grace period (or how long it would extend).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top