Well, thats' one way to enforce the leash law . . .
- Thread starter Lilavati
- Start date
You don't shoot or tase people because they might be a violent criminal or might not. You only tase them or shoot them if they ARE violent right then or threatening violence or physically resisting arrest when resisting arrest might result in harm to someone. He was not being arrested because apparently he was not read his Miranda rights, was he? You don't shoot a dog because he might become violent. Why is it okay to use a dangerous, electric shock device or weapon on someone because they might do something violent or dangerous..but haven't yet?
People get shot by police for a lot less than that. Right in Everett Wa, a man was shot dead because he wouldn't get out of his car. He was drunk...very drunk and was just sitting in a stupor in his car. He was not trying to drive away and he was completely wedged in between two cars. He couldn't have if he tried. He was unarmed and two cops were yelling at him to get out of his car. He simply couldn't...he was so drunk. One of the cops shot and killed him...a 50 something yr. old man with a family. Was he a jerk to be that drunk? Maybe yes. Did he deserve to be shot and killed for it? Would this misbehaving dog-walker deserve to die for being a jerk who was disrespecting the ranger and not obeying her...for breaking a leash law?
What kind of country do some of you people want to live in? A nazi-like, gastopo where those in authority have that much power? It is coming to a time when we tolerate inhumane and over-the-top treatment by law enforcement... to such an extent that they grab the bit by their teeth and run with it however the mood strikes them.
I think those tasers should be either out-lawed or much more stringently regulated....for use in very rare and extreme cases....like guns should be. They are dangerous, risky and inhumane....when they're used on people who have NOT displayed violence or a danger to other people in the near vicinity. I can't imagine someone getting all that electricity shot through their body because he disobeyed or didn't know about a leash law and because he was a jerk who walked away after giving false information. That was wrong of him. He should be charged with something or fined, but not violently attacked with a stun gun or any gun. If every cop or ranger zapped someone for something like that, what next? What will it escalate to? Better be careful what you wish for.
People get shot by police for a lot less than that. Right in Everett Wa, a man was shot dead because he wouldn't get out of his car. He was drunk...very drunk and was just sitting in a stupor in his car. He was not trying to drive away and he was completely wedged in between two cars. He couldn't have if he tried. He was unarmed and two cops were yelling at him to get out of his car. He simply couldn't...he was so drunk. One of the cops shot and killed him...a 50 something yr. old man with a family. Was he a jerk to be that drunk? Maybe yes. Did he deserve to be shot and killed for it? Would this misbehaving dog-walker deserve to die for being a jerk who was disrespecting the ranger and not obeying her...for breaking a leash law?
What kind of country do some of you people want to live in? A nazi-like, gastopo where those in authority have that much power? It is coming to a time when we tolerate inhumane and over-the-top treatment by law enforcement... to such an extent that they grab the bit by their teeth and run with it however the mood strikes them.
I think those tasers should be either out-lawed or much more stringently regulated....for use in very rare and extreme cases....like guns should be. They are dangerous, risky and inhumane....when they're used on people who have NOT displayed violence or a danger to other people in the near vicinity. I can't imagine someone getting all that electricity shot through their body because he disobeyed or didn't know about a leash law and because he was a jerk who walked away after giving false information. That was wrong of him. He should be charged with something or fined, but not violently attacked with a stun gun or any gun. If every cop or ranger zapped someone for something like that, what next? What will it escalate to? Better be careful what you wish for.
I believe that leaving when you have been given the instruction to stay is considered resisting arrest?
No that other guy didn't deserve to die. But he wasn't lying to an office or trying to get away.
This guy was daring the ranger to tase him, giving false info and trying to leave instead of dealing with the issue he caused.
I know there is a giant 'I hate the pigs/cops' but seriously I don't get this refusal to hold anyone responsible for their actions. If I got pulled over and made a run for it because it's just a cop I would expect to get tased if something happened to me because of being tased it would have been my fault for being stupid enough to run.
No that other guy didn't deserve to die. But he wasn't lying to an office or trying to get away.
This guy was daring the ranger to tase him, giving false info and trying to leave instead of dealing with the issue he caused.
I know there is a giant 'I hate the pigs/cops' but seriously I don't get this refusal to hold anyone responsible for their actions. If I got pulled over and made a run for it because it's just a cop I would expect to get tased if something happened to me because of being tased it would have been my fault for being stupid enough to run.
A huge part of the problem, as I can see it, is we have law enforcement reacting in anger -- which should never be a part of their actions. Ever. Someone with the power to give vent to their anger with force without fear of reprisal is dangerous.
"In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves." ~Buddha
"In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves." ~Buddha
I dont hate police at all...I actually have a LOT of respect for the good one. The problem is trigger happy ones make a bad name for the rest and make it harder for the good ones to do the job properly.
No one that I see in this thread is saying the guy is not responsible for his actions, just that tazing is not the appropriate recourse. I do not want to live in a country where cops and rangers are free to shoot and taze over things like leash laws.
No one that I see in this thread is saying the guy is not responsible for his actions, just that tazing is not the appropriate recourse. I do not want to live in a country where cops and rangers are free to shoot and taze over things like leash laws.
I don't hate all cops. I realize they're individuals too. I hate those who are pathological with their power and there are a lot of them. I just got stopped by a cop because I was going a little over the speed limit in order to get up an icey hill. He was perfectly polite about it, let me explain why I was going over and gave me a warning. I didn't feel anger or hate toward him at all. But these cops who shoot peoples' dogs unnecessarily or shoot people for minor crimes make me sick.
If you think I, for one refuse to hold anyone responsible, re-read my posts. I have stated several times that I thought he should have some kind of consequence...some kind of charge or fine. It has been well established through out this thread that he was a jerk, rebellious, disrespectful etc. And the way he acted was wrong. There's no argument with that. What the difference is, which we could go round and round with so this is the last I'll repeat my take on it, being a non-violent criminal, a non-dangerous situation did not justify the use of a dangerous weapon. Getting tased with a potentially deadly weapon is way out of proportion to not following instructions. He could have been followed, tracked down, hand cuffed if back-up had been called....then punished, but punished humanely without the use of excessive force or brutality. We have laws about police brutality and the use of excessive force on citizens. This was not an emergency and did not require a stun gun to gain control. We don't live in some primitive society or culture and it shouldn't include shooting people with one or another kind of weapon for misdemeanor type offenses. In fact, I dare say most aboriginal type societies wouldn't do that.
I exactly see that Renee. She doesn't have the power that a big, strong man does. Being in this position of park ranger is not as powerful as being a police officer. She likely feels powerless and to give her that sense of power over this stronger man who dared defy her, she depended on this stun gun. I am afraid to think what might have transpired had she had a pistol. There are people in all kinds of law enforcement who develop a phenomenon called pathological power. I don't know if that's the case here. That may have just been a gut reaction for her...her first thought, out of anger, like you say. Had she used more intelligence and rationality, she would have called for back-up, followed him to his car, noted his license plate and followed up with an appropriate punishment. Escalating more of a confrontation than there already was, risked peoples' lives. What if he had had a gun? And pulled it after he came to? She should have called for back-up and eased into the situation differently. There was no life threatening or other type of harmful situation to anyone at that point. It was not an emergency.
"In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves." ~Buddha
Such a good quote. I think she was striving for herself...to give herself a feeling of power over this big man who dared to walk his dog without a leash, who had the "audacity" to give a fake name and who disregarded her instructions. She showed him who had the upper hand.
If you think I, for one refuse to hold anyone responsible, re-read my posts. I have stated several times that I thought he should have some kind of consequence...some kind of charge or fine. It has been well established through out this thread that he was a jerk, rebellious, disrespectful etc. And the way he acted was wrong. There's no argument with that. What the difference is, which we could go round and round with so this is the last I'll repeat my take on it, being a non-violent criminal, a non-dangerous situation did not justify the use of a dangerous weapon. Getting tased with a potentially deadly weapon is way out of proportion to not following instructions. He could have been followed, tracked down, hand cuffed if back-up had been called....then punished, but punished humanely without the use of excessive force or brutality. We have laws about police brutality and the use of excessive force on citizens. This was not an emergency and did not require a stun gun to gain control. We don't live in some primitive society or culture and it shouldn't include shooting people with one or another kind of weapon for misdemeanor type offenses. In fact, I dare say most aboriginal type societies wouldn't do that.
I exactly see that Renee. She doesn't have the power that a big, strong man does. Being in this position of park ranger is not as powerful as being a police officer. She likely feels powerless and to give her that sense of power over this stronger man who dared defy her, she depended on this stun gun. I am afraid to think what might have transpired had she had a pistol. There are people in all kinds of law enforcement who develop a phenomenon called pathological power. I don't know if that's the case here. That may have just been a gut reaction for her...her first thought, out of anger, like you say. Had she used more intelligence and rationality, she would have called for back-up, followed him to his car, noted his license plate and followed up with an appropriate punishment. Escalating more of a confrontation than there already was, risked peoples' lives. What if he had had a gun? And pulled it after he came to? She should have called for back-up and eased into the situation differently. There was no life threatening or other type of harmful situation to anyone at that point. It was not an emergency.
"In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves." ~Buddha
Such a good quote. I think she was striving for herself...to give herself a feeling of power over this big man who dared to walk his dog without a leash, who had the "audacity" to give a fake name and who disregarded her instructions. She showed him who had the upper hand.
Last edited:
