Well, thats' one way to enforce the leash law . . .

take that!

although harsh, when you've broken some law, whether it's a leash law or speeding law or whatever, have the nuts to stand up and take responsibility for it.

I think the reaction was a bit extreme, but I have a hard time feeling sorry for those that want to skirt the rules then thumb their nose at authority.

I go leashless a lot of times, but if I was being questioned, i'd put my dogs in a down and take what was coming to me. If I thumbed my nose and told them I was Charlie Freakin Sheen and walked away, I'd expect to get something I really don't want.

Yeah, I feel pretty much the same way. I think the taser was seriously excessive, and so was the arrest, considering the nature of the violation.

On the other hand, all he probably had to do was tell her his name, apologize, and say he wouldn't do it again. It doesn't even seem that she was going to give him a ticket. He was breaking the law, so she had the right to stop him. This may be a case where "contempt of cop" really is a legitimate excuse for the use of force . . . assuming that she asked him to stop or be arrested before she hit him with the taser, anyway.

Given the fact that the park had been off-leash up until recently, I think the ranger could have at least said "hey, you can't have your dogs off-leash anymore" instead of trying to get all the info from the guy and then tazing him.

I just went through something similar the other day, except Sawyer had a drag leash on and apparently that's not good enough. I didn't get asked for my info though.

I'm sort of assuming, I admit, that she said that first. I guess it will depend on the facts as they come out.

A bit more detail:

http://www.ohmidog.com/2012/02/01/park-ranger-tases-man-with-unleashed-dog/

How strange. I could see if he was like, actually leaving, and she told him to stop several times. But still, tazing him?

Yeah, I think its extreme too . . . but then I think . . . what ELSE was she supposed to do? Tackle him? Grab him and risk getting into a fight (I presume she was smaller than he was)? Call for back up? Say that he was under arrest and see what happened? Let him go? (I'd say the last except that he WAS breaking the law and blowing her off).

I really hate the fact that tasers are used so casually, and I don't think "contempt of cop" should be a crime. But just walking off when a LEO is talking to you about the fact you broke the law is pretty unacceptable too.

Yeah, I REALLY dislike that tasers seem to be becoming the go to way to apprehend..and they seem to be used pretty frequently in very questionable situations.

I would say, call for back up, follow him, etc.

And then there's always, "is it really worth chasing someone down over?"

I'll be the odd one out. I don't really feel sorry for him.

Did he even put the dogs on a leash after being told it's not an off leash area any more? Doesn't say he did.

But when someone like police officer or a park ranger tells you to do something you do it. You don't give fake information and you don't walk off after they have told you to stay there. And I'm sorry when you DARE them to arrest you yeah imo you deserve to be tased for being a difficult, lying prick.

You're not that odd, I don't really feel sorry for him either. I think it was a bit excessive considering the initial "offense", but sometimes in life you get what you're asking for.

I don't even remotely feel sorry for him. Assuming the story is accurate, he's a prick, at minimum, and his conduct towards the ranger was not acceptable. The issue is what circumstances justify hitting someone with a taser (which can be deadly, on rare occasion), not whether this guy was in the right.

Exactly. He should have had hand cuffs put on him. If there had been men rangers instead of a woman (I hate to have to say it but they are stronger) that probably could have been done. Using a very potentially deadly weapon for something as minor as this is uncivilized....barbaric and excessive imo. I'm surprised and relieved that the dogs weren't shot.

I guess my question would be..what would have happened before tasers? That should still be the standard in these situation.

really? wrestling someone to the ground can be deadly as well ( on rare occasions) could have ended deadly for her as well. Gun could go off, gun could get stolen and turned on her.

When it all could have been avoided by someone taking ownership of screwing up. If you're unleashed in a leash only area and get stopped, pay your **** ticket and move on.

I think once we're past the unleashed dogs, he was tased for a much more egregious offense of resisting a lawful stop.

The two reports sound like totally different cases!

In the first one, witnesses say that he asked the ranger why he was being detained and she wouldn't say.

In the second one, and argument broke out, and witness say the man dared the ranger to arrest him.

Can a taser be fatal for someone with that thing that sends out electrical pulses to keep your heart working? I tried to google the name of it, but even google couldn't figure out what I was thinking of.

I agree with this. He asked for it.

If the guy were being arrested, then he should be told why. 2nd: if he resists arrest and doesn't succumb to having hand cuffs put on, starts fighting or whatever, then and only then should the force of a taser be used. I agree that he broke the law, but it is still a minor offense and something this painful and risky should have been used as a last resort. He was a jerk, was thumbing his nose at authority and lied. But he wasn't a danger to anyone by letting his dogs off leash. He wasn't robbing a bank or threatening to kill anyone. I just don't think this "crime" is worth messing with someone's heart rhythms.

That's the real issue, and reason I haven't decided whether I'm outraged or not. He wasn't tased because of the dogs . . .he was tased for openly blowing off the ranger, who (assuming she told him why he was being detained, etc) had the right to stop him and give him a ticket and arrest him if he didn't cooperate. The problem is that tasers are meant to be a less-lethal substitute for a gun, and I think we all agree that shooting him would have been way excessive. (and yes, tasers can kill you if you have a pacemaker, as well as under other circumstances.)

But assuming she was smaller than he was (probably a safe assumption) she couldn't arrest him if he resisted, safely, without using the taser, and he'd already shown himself to be uncooperative. Just trying to handcuff him, or go after him with a baton would have been pretty dangerous.

And as much as I think "contempt of cop" is not and should not be a crime, blowing off a LEO who has given a lawful order, when you are in fact breaking the law, is the sort of thing that does need to have consequences. Otherwise, the enforcement of laws against minor crimes would pretty much become impossible, as people blow off the cops knowing nothing will happen to them.

The more I read about this the more I think the correct response would have been to call for back up. Of course, that assumes that a park ranger really has back up . . .

Edit: Dober, the problem I see with trying to arrest him first and tasing him if he resists, is that I imagine that he may well (and we don't know) have been substantially bigger than she. We don't know exactly what happened, which made it hard to judge, but I can understand that if he was larger and seemed like he might be aggressive, why she wouldn't want to (and probably shouldn't) get into physical contact with him.

Part of the problem with this is that we don't have all the facts.