Diapered AGW Attacks Man for “Walking off Trail”

Hi, Jeremy,

>Cryptogamic
I learned a new word! Thanks 🙂
Wikipedia article is rather extensive, for those who are interested.

To speak to the question of “Why the rules?” I believe, as I stated previously, it is very likely a question of traffic volume. Five thousand tramping boots likely do a great deal more damage than five, or fifty.
Another *possible* reason for “stay on the trail” @ Petroglyph is the nature of the place. Petroglyphs are really a form of “ancient graffiti.” Whether they have religious significance to anyone, in this case, I do not know (perhaps you do?). Either way, there are undoubtedly *some* a-holes out there who would be in favor of some 21st century “editing,” which would destroy the monument. (I also like to see Juan de Oñate’s “Pasp por aqui” @ El Morro without any modern “embellishments.”) Park police do have to deal with these possibilities.

An interesting question, to which I do not know the answer, is, “What law governs on NPS land? ” Are national parks and national monuments governed by the laws of the state in which they are located, or does U.S. federal law take precedence? If the former, then park rangers will have more, or less, authority, depending on the location of the park. My hunch (but I do not know) is that the feds have anticipated this possibility, and dealt with it (somehow). As I say, I am speculating.

But now, to the question of law versus morality. Certainly it is true that you must obey the dictates of your own conscience. It is also true that if the law conflicts with your beliefs, you will have trouble with the law, until or unless you can get the law changed.

Do I think the Park Ranger handled the situation poorly? That assertion appears defensible. IOW, yes. It is possible he could have achieved a better outcome without the repeated tasings. Maybe park rangers should be provided with nets, to deal with recalcitrant individuals in a more “humane” manner. 🙂 Tasers were intended as a “non lethal” alternative to firearms, but, as the years have passed, it has become apparent they are *not* entirely harmless, and a) may be misused by overzealous laws enforcement, and/or b) be totally ineffective with some individuals. What to do?

I seem to remember reading once, a long time ago, that some clever polymer chemists @ Sandia Labs were attempting to develop some kind of “sticky goo” which would function as a “one time net” for this purpose. Evidently they were unsuccessful, or maybe just had to go back to their regular task of devising better ways to blow up the world.

Thanks for keeping it civil. 🙂

Thanks much Jeremy. These people are simply scum. No law makes it other or makes it so.

I don’t carry any ID on me when I’m not driving. Just some cash and keys. I can’t give the taxfeeding thugs what I don’t have.

By the way, William, I’ve been meaning to tell you how much I admire your work on “The Time Tunnel”. Very impressive sets and effects for the time though the scripts are nothing special for the most part.

Hiibel vs. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada is the 2004 precedent in which the Supreme Court ruled that cops had the legal right to ask for your ID or name. The subject in question refused to provide name or ID and was arrested. He was not driving at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada

The problem is that terms used in the Constitution such as “probable cause” and “unreasonable searches and seizures” are subjective and thus dependent on how the courts interpret them. If the courts rule that cops had “probable cause” or were acting “reasonably” when they beat the fuck out of you for not cooperating with them, then they can and will do it and will get away with it.

Well — and I am not being pedantic here, but this is an important distinction — it is not so much a question of understanding “the law” as it is a matter of “following the precedent.” The IS often a difference between “the law” and what the courts SAY the law is.

And yes, you are correct, the precedent says that the cops can ask for ID if they have probable cause — which in turn is completely subjective. This Indian guy was, by his own admission, breaking the rules of the park, so the cop had probable cause. The greater problem is that even if the Indian had not been breaking the rules, any cop could have easily manufactured probable cause by saying the magic words “I smelled marijuana” or “I believed he had a weapon” when it was in fact, say, a cell phone, or “I believed he was intoxicated” because he stumbled.

The fact remains that the courts, which are staffed by socio-political elites, gave the cops these powers. The idea that one can stand up to the cops and then have his day in court is largely fantasy, and the idea that the cop will personally pay a price for his actions is usually a fantasy as well.

The best policy is to avoid the cops as much as possible. However this Indian guy failed to do that by taking the attitude “I’m an Indian, I can walk wherever I want.”

And demand of “ID”, which only applies in states with “stop and identify” statutes, is still in flux insofar as the LEGAL requirement to produce a Government-issued ID card (usually a Driver’s License) on demand by the ‘peace’ officer. Yes, in ALL states, if the LEO asks your name and place of residence, you do have a requirement to truthfully answer, promptly, but you do NOT have to carry “your papers, please”. Even in states with the “Stop and ID” laws, an LEO may only TEMPORARILY detain to investigate IF “reasonable suspicion” of a crime exists, that generally being considered, in most cases, to be an hour or less. That is, de facto, an ARREST, and one should consider himself as having all rights pertaining to arrestees and employing caution thereof. An further detention is, in the eyes of the law, an actual arrest, and must be based on “probable cause”, which is a higher level of proof. Of course, there is but one “wee” problem…it’s generally not a good idea to argue the finer points of detention and/or arrest procedures with a hostile, self-righteous, abusive LEO, it’s a bad situation that you can’t “win” by force or evasion, at least not in the end, and you would most likely turn what could be a lucrative lawsuit into being a LONG-term “guest” of the state, or even the most “righteous man” in the whole Gott-damned cemetery! As any attorney would advise…don’t fight the cops, even if they are being abusive, on the street, save the fight for your lawyer to carry out in COURT.

eric, true enough and it varies from state to state. Besides, I think SCOTUS has that same smell that got rubbed off on CJ Sat.

I am all for Darwin weeding out the stupid.

Eric, how does one hold someone accountable when there are no rules? Not only that, but who holds them accountable?

Hi RG,

I don’t consider you a liberal; I consider you a “conservative” who hasn’t yet taken the next step (as I did, a long time ago). As Jeremy wrote, whatever the issue, there is no excuse for the AGW’s brutal treatment of the man – who was clearly not anything more than a “threat” to the AGW’s Authority. No weapon. No raised hands, even. Nothing more than disobedience. There is no justification for the kind of force we see used in this case. It’s egregious, it’s despicable. You don’t torture people for walking off trails, or refusing to hand over “papers.”

And it’s why many people – me among them – who strongly support peacekeeping despise “law enforcers.”

@RG,

I see where you are coming from, but I think that if the “real” story was significantly different than what’s on the video, we’d see a “resisting arrest” charge or something greater. Maybe not, but that’s my opinion. I think the absence of the “resisting arrest” charge says at least as much as what the short video captured. My two cents.

CJM

Hi RG,

I certainly don’t think you’re a liberal, at least not in the modern, perverted meaning of the term. And, I agree with you that what seems to be is often false, or only part of the story. But, that truth does not mean we should always reserve judgement until ALL of the facts are in (which is itself highly problematic). In this case, we know enough of the facts to render a judgement, and it should not be let’s wait for due process and a verdict (which is also plagued by the three sides to a story, the defendant, the State and the truth).

We know that Darrel House was assaulted, by an AGW, with a potentially lethal weapon. We also know that he posed no genuine threat to the officer. So, what new facts could emerge that justifies this attack? Past history or banging his wife could render his actions understandable, but not justifiable. If I discovered that a man was banging my wife, and I assaulted him, my actions would be deemed by many as understandable, but that would not make them justifiable.

Libertarians are often accused of rejecting authority, this is not true. We reject illegitimate authority, which includes actions taken under color of law, or even the law itself, if the law is unjust. Going back to the “Tom Joad test”, the reserve judgement approach you favor, in this case, seems to be a reflexive deference to authority, regardless of legitimacy. This may not be a fair characterization of you, but this attitude is dominant in our culture, and inimical to liberty. If the dominant attitude toward authority were suspicion and, when the available evidence supports it, condemnation, rather than deference, perhaps more people would be “eternally vigilant” against tyranny.

Cheers,
Jeremy

Hi BaDnOn,

“what could justify this?” is “I don’t know”.

Well, we should know. Only if Mr. House posed a genuine threat to the officer, are his actions justifiable. We know, to a degree “beyond reasonable doubt” that he did not. Why would we apply a more rigorous restriction on ourselves, in merely offering an opinion, than the State claims is necessary to deprive a man of life or liberty?

In the abstract, I agree that “rushing to conclusions” is a bad thing. But, this is not what is going on here. We have ENOUGH facts to condemn this action. We, at least most on this forum, also have the honesty to admit if we are wrong. It is a strangely inverted world where the benefit of the doubt is rarely given to a “normie”, but almost always given to a State licensed purveyor of violence. The “reserve judgement, wait for due process”, etc… is a narrative used by the PTB to disarm criticism of their own abhorrent actions. “We” should not fall for it.

Cheers,
Jeremy