Man Tased flying his drone in State Park

[Overread]

I've heard that the remote helicopters were banned in state parks in the USA, though I heard it was more under grounds of wildlife disturbance because lots of people were using them near nests and other wildlife and causing disturbance to them as a result.

Reading one article it sounds like the tazed person thought the ranger was another member of the public and thus raises the question if he was in a suitable uniform to be practical for his work whilst also clearly denoting his position.
Otherwise it sounds like the guy ran and was promptly brought to ground by non-lethal means.


I guess a tazer is a suitable weapon for such a position; I've no idea how far off the beaten track Park Rangers operate nor how many operate in groups or alone. Thus given the choice between tazer and physical restraint I can see that the former would be the weapon of choice for most and might be the reason the ranger has such a weapon at their disposal.

 

[480sparky]

I've heard that the remote helicopters were banned in state parks in the USA, .........

They are........... in national parks. State parks are under the jurisdiction of each state, so there's no one single blanket law covering all of them.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Why, when told to stop - why don't people just - stop?? What exactly is the problem? If he didn't have an ID with him what about getting the registration out of the car? or what about his wife, did she have her license with her? or any other way to identify himself? If someone takes off running the officer has no clue what the person intends to do and running will make them think he's got a warrant out on him or something.

I guess having done home visits in a major city in neighborhoods where there are shootings and drug activity etc. I'm aware of what goes on and know about too much but for heaven's sake, if you didn't know it wasn't okay to operate a drone then explain that and cooperate, don't take off running. (And he was with his wife and kids and he just took off?? maybe there's more to the story... I agree there are plenty of websites that are NOT legit new sites and the information isn't necessarily accurate).

And the guy apparently referred to it as a 'toy' and that's some of the problem, these are UAV's, unmanned aircraft, NOT radio operated toys, so I hope the FAA gets regs updated and better publicized.

 

[Overread]

Vintage- the thing is they are toys. You can get them with no licence for less than a DSLR - they are toys.

What was once the domain of the very few highly keen enthusiasts with a big price label and in niche hobby stores has very fast become something that everyone can potentially own. Legislation is certainly now having to run to catch up - even in the UK we are getting more talks about how to deal with them as an issue.

 

[waday]

I've heard that the remote helicopters were banned in state parks in the USA, .........

They are........... in national parks. State parks are under the jurisdiction of each state, so there's no one single blanket law covering all of them.

There's an error in the title of the thread. The park in question is a national park.

Hawai i Volcanoes National Park U.S. National Park Service

 

[480sparky]

........ If someone takes off running the officer has no clue what the person intends to do and running will make them think he's got a warrant out on him or something...........

Still, no reason to zap him. Running away is not endangering others any more than a jogger in a park.

 

[Overread]

The running itself is not a danger; however the Ranger was challenging the person over what is a very minor matter in general; for the person challenged to react and then flee suggests to the ranger that something else was going on. What that was he might not have been sure of at the time, however its rather like if the police catch you speeding.

If you pull over and stop you get a fine and points - if you speed up and flee they chase you down because they bet you're not running just for the fine and points and are likely doing or involved in something WAY worse.


I can see justification for the pursuit - the tazer has some too, though depends a little more on the situation.

 

[480sparky]

...........though depends a little more on the situation.

And I suspect that we peons will most likely never really know the details of this situation.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Yeah there's probably more to it, and I would rather them not have to use a taser on anybody; I do find it surprising that a park officer would have one but I don't know exactly what their authority is or what their operating procedures are.

I think when something like this happens they don't necessarily know what they might be dealing with (is the guy on drugs? does he have a criminal record?) and they have to expect potentially the worst case scenario. Or maybe the officer did overreact. But they probably don't know what someone might do next if the person reacts by fleeing instead of a more reasonable reaction in a situation.

 

[tirediron]

There are very few cases where people like this don't over-react. Instead of walking up to the individual, explaining who he was and politely asking him to stop doing what he was doing, he acted in typical [wanna-be] police fashion:

A guy approached me in the dark and said, ‘Bring it down!’ and he was very angry. I had no idea he was a ranger.

I would have likely reacted in exactly the same fashion. Another case of the public servant forgetting who is the public and who is the servant.

 

[Tailgunner]

Man is faulted for not cooperating.

LEO is faulted for overreaching.

Man stated 'I don't have ID and I'm leaving."

This was a Park Ranger who are generally unarmed.

 

[Designer]

Man stated 'I don't have ID and I'm leaving."

This was a Park Ranger who are generally unarmed.

Yes, I got all that in my first read through. Is there something you think I may have missed?

 

[JoeW]

I'm going to offer a bit of a contrarian view here. And I acknowledge upfront I don't know the NPS rules for using tasers or any kind of force. And I don't know the details of the case (other than the brief article--which let's assume is factual and reasonably accurate for right now).

1. The National Parks have become quite a haven for drug trafficking/transportation and a host of other illegal activities. And the NPS is understaffed, most park rangers will admit that they can barely cover the territory in the park, let alone police it. Talk to any park ranger and they'll tell you that it's a growing problem, they're doing their best to deal with it. So they tend to be suspicious of anything that seems out of the ordinary.

2. A national park is considered Federal land. And a member of the NPS (i.e.: a park ranger) is considered law enforcement. When they give a command to stop or produce ID, you're required to do that as a condition of being in that park. It's equivalent to you being stopped by a cop on the street, asked for your ID and instead you choose to run. What would happen next if you did that? (And no, I'm not talking about what would happen if you were black.) Most folks don't get that, they think a public park is "free land" with license to do whatever you want and a park ranger is just there to make sure the trash can doesn't overflow. Nah, the Park Ranger is the first option for rescue, first aid, and law enforcement plus crowd control, keeping the peace, property preservation, managing conflict, spotting potential danger (like fires or a collapsed trail) and also a friendly docent.

3. There have been a number of memos within various Federal agencies recently (including the Park Service) to be on the look out for drones as a means of delivery explosives.

Now, I'm not arguing the tasering decision was legit and appropriate. Or that the Ranger acted within reason. But I can tell you that Rangers are instructed to stop the use of drones (for a variety of reasons, only two of which are disturbing the wildlife and safety of other humans). And Rangers are told to stop anyone and get ID when someone is violating rules (even if they don't cite you or expel you ) or if you're engaging in suspicious activity or in an area that has had problems before (like loitering near a road that have been used as landing strip for drug drops or human trafficking, etc.). And Park Rangers have the legal right to do so.

I'm a huge fan of Park Rangers and the NPS. They've been extremely helpful for me as a photographer more times than I can count. They've almost always been willing to bend the rules or look the other way if you aren't being a jerk. I've had Park Rangers offer all sorts of tips to me as a photographer...best way to beat the crowd, best location for a sunset on that specific day in Yosemite, best place for a stable tripod setup, least likely location to have a crowd, best early morning feeding spot at Yellowstone for wildlife...and on and on. Even when they were originally "on full alert" mode and asked for my ID (it's happened at least 3 times), when I was cooperative, they suddenly became very apologetic and extremely helpful. I'd prefer to see no-one tasered. But almost every Park Ranger has dealt with a wide multitude of bizarre and dangerous activities so I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt in cases like this.

 

[Braineack]

best way to beat the crowd? use a taser.

 

[Tailgunner]

Man stated 'I don't have ID and I'm leaving."

This was a Park Ranger who are generally unarmed.

Yes, I got all that in my first read through. Is there something you think I may have missed?

You stated man was tased for refusing to lease, the man said he was tased while trying to leave.