Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:

agnosto wrote:Hey Frazz, why don't you give a false name to a city cop and walk away while he's talking to you and see what happens?

While I wouldn't give a false name, I would certainly walk away from a city cop while he's talking to me, especially if he wouldn't give me a reason why I'm being detained.

It would be nice to pay off my mortgage early.

So you deny the validity of an investigatory stop? Honestly we don't have enough information, based upon a news article; however, if the Ranger had stopped the gentleman, was asking questions in an attempt to issue a citation for his unlawful conduct and he walked away, the law officer would be within his/her rights to arrest the individual. As he was later arrested for "suspician of failing to obey a lawful order" it would be a fair assumption that the individual was being attempting to avoid a citation.

A little more information:

An escalating argument ensued, according to John Barlett, a nearby resident who was walking in the area. The dog-walker was "defiant," Barlett said, daring the ranger as he began walking away, "Are you going to arrest me?"

http://www.hmbreview.com/news/witnesses-dog-walker-tased-by-park-ranger-in-montara/article_02b264dc-4b86-11e1-b619-0019bb2963f4.html

I'm not sure if being on federal land makes a difference.

AustonT wrote:When someone wearing a badge asks what your name is the next thing you say should be, "why" and if he fails to articulate a reasonable suspicion it's time for your feet to start the heel toe shuffle away. Never talk to the police, and if they have a reason to force the issue they can arrest you, or tase you in the back for failing to allow them to illegal detain and question you.

More or less this.

If they have RS, then you can't just walk away without having some force used on you. If they don't have RS, you can walk away without saying a word.

Like I said before, it's not super clear which case it was here, but she's definitely a sworn LEO, so it's one of the two.

agnosto wrote:

AustonT wrote:If you read closely you'll see she was a National Park Service Ranger. I'll make the wild guess she was of the law enforcement rather than tour guide variety; which would make her a federal law enforcement agent on park lands.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
GAME wardens have some of the powers of regular LEOs and more. Like they don't need your permission to search your vehicle on BLM and Federal land you know for illegal animals and weapons.

This.

I'll just assume that some of you don't get out much because the law enforcement branch of the Park Rangers has the same if not more powers than local law enforcement. Likening them to "meter maids" or other lower rungs of legal forces is not accurate.

Hey Frazz, why don't you give a false name to a city cop and walk away while he's talking to you and see what happens?

1. Ranger RIck is not a cop.
2. I don't get in those situations because I am not a .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rented Tritium wrote:

AustonT wrote:When someone wearing a badge asks what your name is the next thing you say should be, "why" and if he fails to articulate a reasonable suspicion it's time for your feet to start the heel toe shuffle away. Never talk to the police, and if they have a reason to force the issue they can arrest you, or tase you in the back for failing to allow them to illegal detain and question you.

More or less this.

If they have RS, then you can't just walk away without having some force used on you. If they don't have RS, you can walk away without saying a word.

Like I said before, it's not super clear which case it was here, but she's definitely a sworn LEO, so it's one of the two.

Its not actually. It just says she's a Ranger Rick.

Frazzled wrote:

agnosto wrote:

AustonT wrote:If you read closely you'll see she was a National Park Service Ranger. I'll make the wild guess she was of the law enforcement rather than tour guide variety; which would make her a federal law enforcement agent on park lands.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
GAME wardens have some of the powers of regular LEOs and more. Like they don't need your permission to search your vehicle on BLM and Federal land you know for illegal animals and weapons.

This.

I'll just assume that some of you don't get out much because the law enforcement branch of the Park Rangers has the same if not more powers than local law enforcement. Likening them to "meter maids" or other lower rungs of legal forces is not accurate.

Hey Frazz, why don't you give a false name to a city cop and walk away while he's talking to you and see what happens?

1. Ranger RIck is not a cop.
2. I don't get in those situations because I am not a .

National park rangers are sworn federal law enforcement officers. You are 100% flat out wrong, frazzled.

I rarely side with the popo but he gave a false name, and walked away. How do you know what was said, the man could have been a total a-hole to the ranger. In chicago it would have been the same or worse. Prolly a lot worse if you lied then tried to walk away with the ranger/cop telling you to stop moving. The ranger was a woman correct, and a woman who's authority is being disrespected is bad enough. Now enter in the equation a badge and a tazer, and a guy walking away...ZZZzzapsville.

Frazzled wrote:1. Ranger RIck is not a cop.
2. I don't get in those situations because I am not a .

There are two types of Rangers, LEO and non-LEO; it's roughly half and half. If she was an LEO Ranger, she has the same training and powers as any other federal law enforcement personnel.

Life is cheap. Flesh is plentiful.

Erm not all National Park Rangers are LEOs, a relatively small number are in fact. But Ranger Rick can be a squirrel chaser, a tour guide, or a paramilitary federal swat officer.

It's also pretty clear from what he was charged with that his only arrest able offense was Contempt of Cop ( I found it on wiki and I'm fascinated; it's a catchy term.) Unless she was actually writing a citation I don't think he can be popped for providing false information, the leash is a ticket citation not an arrest able offense, so without a carbon of a ticket I don't think either of the other two charges can stick and she had no cause to Order him to stop and he couldn't have disobeyed a lawful order. But that's just how I read it.

AustonT wrote:Erm not all National Park Rangers are LEOs, a relatively small number are in fact. But Ranger Rick can be a squirrel chaser, a tour guide, or a paramilitary federal swat officer.

It's also pretty clear from what he was charged with that his only arrest able offense was Contempt of Cop ( I found it on wiki and I'm fascinated; it's a catchy term.) Unless she was actually writing a citation I don't think he can be popped for providing false information, the leash is a ticket citation not an arrest able offense, so without a carbon of a ticket I don't think either of the other two charges can stick and she had no cause to Order him to stop and he couldn't have disobeyed a lawful order. But that's just how I read it.

If you are at reasonable suspicion, you are under detainment and you are required to provide identifying information. She does not have to be writing a ticket to meet the charge requirement there AS LONG AS she is at reasonable suspicion.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

agnosto wrote:

AustonT wrote:If you read closely you'll see she was a National Park Service Ranger. I'll make the wild guess she was of the law enforcement rather than tour guide variety; which would make her a federal law enforcement agent on park lands.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
GAME wardens have some of the powers of regular LEOs and more. Like they don't need your permission to search your vehicle on BLM and Federal land you know for illegal animals and weapons.

This.

I'll just assume that some of you don't get out much because the law enforcement branch of the Park Rangers has the same if not more powers than local law enforcement. Likening them to "meter maids" or other lower rungs of legal forces is not accurate.

Hey Frazz, why don't you give a false name to a city cop and walk away while he's talking to you and see what happens?

1. Ranger RIck is not a cop.
2. I don't get in those situations because I am not a .

National park rangers are sworn federal law enforcement officers. You are 100% flat out wrong, frazzled.

WE're talking the guy who cleans the toilets is a cop?

The only question I have is, does the particular Ranger RIck have a holstered firearm?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

agnosto wrote:

Frazzled wrote:1. Ranger RIck is not a cop.
2. I don't get in those situations because I am not a .

There are two types of Rangers, LEO and non-LEO; it's roughly half and half. If she was an LEO Ranger, she has the same training and powers as any other federal law enforcement personnel.

Exactly.

Further, please show me the police manual that hasn't been laughed at by the courts, that notes its standard procedure to tase someone who is not a threat when there is no lawful detention?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rented Tritium wrote:

AustonT wrote:Erm not all National Park Rangers are LEOs, a relatively small number are in fact. But Ranger Rick can be a squirrel chaser, a tour guide, or a paramilitary federal swat officer.

It's also pretty clear from what he was charged with that his only arrest able offense was Contempt of Cop ( I found it on wiki and I'm fascinated; it's a catchy term.) Unless she was actually writing a citation I don't think he can be popped for providing false information, the leash is a ticket citation not an arrest able offense, so without a carbon of a ticket I don't think either of the other two charges can stick and she had no cause to Order him to stop and he couldn't have disobeyed a lawful order. But that's just how I read it.

If you are at reasonable suspicion, you are under detainment and you are required to provide identifying information. She does not have to be writing a ticket to meet the charge requirement there AS LONG AS she is at reasonable suspicion.

Ay but there's the rub, reasonable suspicion. Further, you cannot handcuff them without a similar belief for the protection of the officer while committing the investigation.

Are you allowed to shoot anyone in the back for any reason (as a law officer) other than if you are in some kind of running gun battle with low down crims?

SilverMK2 wrote:Are you allowed to shoot anyone in the back for any reason (as a law officer) other than if you are in some kind of running gun battle with low down crims?

You have to be in fear of imminent death or great harm of yourself or others.
EDIT: Except Chicago.

SilverMK2 wrote:Are you allowed to shoot anyone in the back for any reason (as a law officer) other than if you are in some kind of running gun battle with low down crims?

I would think not. No matter how this incident is painted, I can't see it as anything but unreasonable force.

Frazzled wrote:The only question I have is, does the particular Ranger RIck have a holstered firearm?

Probably, given the Taser.

god wouldn't it be funny of it was THAT ranger. You can see her mags and Taser but not firearm...but I'm guessing she isn't just carrying mags.

Frazzled wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:Are you allowed to shoot anyone in the back for any reason (as a law officer) other than if you are in some kind of running gun battle with low down crims?

You have to be in fear of imminent death or great harm of yourself or others.

He was going for his gun. Or at least that's what she thought it was.

You just don't realize how hard it is being part of the Thin Blue Line (tm) between law-abiding civilians and the barbarians at the gate! (who walk their dogs off leash).

Frazzled wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:Are you allowed to shoot anyone in the back for any reason (as a law officer) other than if you are in some kind of running gun battle with low down crims?

You have to be in fear of imminent death or great harm of yourself or others.
EDIT: Except Chicago.

Aren't there certain states or maybe all of them that allow an officer to shoot a suspect fleeing the scene of a felony? I remember something along those lines but not specifically the circumstances.

agnosto wrote:So you deny the validity of an investigatory stop? Honestly we don't have enough information, based upon a news article; however, if the Ranger had stopped the gentleman, was asking questions in an attempt to issue a citation for his unlawful conduct and he walked away, the law officer would be within his/her rights to arrest the individual. As he was later arrested for "suspician of failing to obey a lawful order" it would be a fair assumption that the individual was being attempting to avoid a citation.

Missed this, sorry.

If the cop has reason to detain me, he has to inform me of that reason. If he doesn't inform me, then I'm going to assume he doesn't have reason to detain me.

If you're referring to a Terry stop, then I'm not denying that police have that authority.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:Aren't there certain states or maybe all of them that allow an officer to shoot a suspect fleeing the scene of a felony? I remember something along those lines but not specifically the circumstances.

If the suspect committed a dangerous felony (murder, forcible rape, mayhem, etc), yes, the officer can shoot the suspect.

Joey wrote:

agnosto wrote:He was being lawfully detained for questioning and attempted to leave the scene. Other than shooting him, tackling and scuffling with him what other option did she have?

Excessive, no.

The fact that you don't regard that as excessive is...strange.
If something like that happened here there'd be a riot...

Well yeah, the British look for any reason to throw a riot.

You can't Stop me!
sir, it's a Terry stop.
DISCRIMINATION!

Melissia wrote:

Joey wrote:

agnosto wrote:He was being lawfully detained for questioning and attempted to leave the scene. Other than shooting him, tackling and scuffling with him what other option did she have?

Excessive, no.

The fact that you don't regard that as excessive is...strange.
If something like that happened here there'd be a riot...

Well yeah, the British look for any reason to throw a riot.

Careful, now.
I might just have to go down the road and throw bricks at windows for that comment.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:Are you allowed to shoot anyone in the back for any reason (as a law officer) other than if you are in some kind of running gun battle with low down crims?

I would think not. No matter how this incident is painted, I can't see it as anything but unreasonable force.

It's called fleeing felon doctrine. If there is a reasonable belief that a dangerous fleeing felon will seriously hurt or kill someone, you can use deadly force. This is very old law.

Melissia wrote:Well yeah, the British look for any reason to throw a riot.

We're not the French you know

Rented Tritium wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:Are you allowed to shoot anyone in the back for any reason (as a law officer) other than if you are in some kind of running gun battle with low down crims?

I would think not. No matter how this incident is painted, I can't see it as anything but unreasonable force.

It's called fleeing felon doctrine. If there is a reasonable belief that a dangerous fleeing felon will seriously hurt or kill someone, you can use deadly force. This is very old law.

True, but how does this man conjure up such a belief?
See what I mean? Even with that law in force, it would be hard to convince people that shortly after walking his dogs off-lead he was planning to shoot someone.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Melissia wrote:Well yeah, the British look for any reason to throw a riot.

We're not the French you know

The French look for any reason to surrender.

The French Canadians look for any reason to Surrender, Riot, and smother everything in Gravy.

On the other side of this, to get to this point, can't we all guess the dog owner was a major ass. A little karmic Zen may have occurred here.

Frazzled wrote:
Ay but there's the rub, reasonable suspicion. Further, you cannot handcuff them without a similar belief for the protection of the officer while committing the investigation.

Yep. Again like I said, if she didn't have reasonable suspicion, this wasn't right. Handcuffing during detainment doesn't actually require any imminent belief of harm, though. It can also be because you are about to search them or turn your back on them or whatnot.

But yes, if she didn't have reasonable suspicion, she's got nothing. If she did, she's probably in the clear.

Frazzled wrote:On the other side of this, to get to this point, can't we all guess the dog owner was a major ass. A little karmic Zen may have occurred here.

Well he was a dog owner and it didn't say his dogs were wiener dogs... obviously he was inferior.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:Are you allowed to shoot anyone in the back for any reason (as a law officer) other than if you are in some kind of running gun battle with low down crims?

I would think not. No matter how this incident is painted, I can't see it as anything but unreasonable force.

It's called fleeing felon doctrine. If there is a reasonable belief that a dangerous fleeing felon will seriously hurt or kill someone, you can use deadly force. This is very old law.

True, but how does this man conjure up such a belief?
See what I mean? Even with that law in force, it would be hard to convince people that shortly after walking his dogs off-lead he was planning to shoot someone.

She didn't shoot him with a gun, she used a taser. Tasers are several levels of force below guns, so you're talking apples and oranges.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:On the other side of this, to get to this point, can't we all guess the dog owner was a major ass. A little karmic Zen may have occurred here.

Well he was a dog owner and it didn't say his dogs were wiener dogs... obviously he was inferior.

Exactly.

Rented Tritium wrote:If she did

It still wouldn't stop a lawyer from pressing a claim to the contrary.