# Man Tased flying his drone in State Park



## Tailgunner (May 3, 2015)

No fly zones, it's best to learn them! 

Hawaii Man Tased and Arrested for Flying Drone in National Park - PINAC


----------



## snerd (May 3, 2015)

> A Hawaii man was tased and arrested for flying a drone at a national park Saturday in front dozens of shocked witnesses who say the ranger went completely overboard.
> 
> But Hawai’i Volcanoes National Park spokesperson Jessica Ferracane said it was necessary to tase him in order to keep everybody safe.
> 
> ...



Just, wow. Scary man with a drone.  LOL!!


----------



## Tailgunner (May 3, 2015)

Oh boy, just read the full article on another thread, the guy was flying a 3" Micro quad chopter. And was Tased out of fear it would hurt someone?


----------



## snerd (May 3, 2015)

Tailgunner said:


> Oh boy, just read the full article on another thread, the guy was flying a 3" Micro quad chopter. And was Tased out of fear it would hurt someone?


To keep the other visitors safe, man! Why, he could have buzzed them or something lol!!!


----------



## 480sparky (May 3, 2015)

The man was obviously gathering intelligence for Al Qaeda, videoing the state's  volcanic infrastructure (oh so vital to national defense!) so terrorists could plot to destroy it.


----------



## tirediron (May 3, 2015)

^^ Rated as "Funny" since there's no "Sad but true" option.


----------



## Tailgunner (May 4, 2015)

480sparky said:


> The man was obviously gathering intelligence for Al Qaeda, videoing the state's  volcanic infrastructure (oh so vital to national defense!) so terrorists could plot to destroy it.



I doubt his 3" Drone had the capacity to video. It would have come in handy though during any trial..."look jury, this is where my client was Tased, right as the drone spirals out of control and slams in the back some some seniors head" lol


----------



## The_Traveler (May 4, 2015)

3" micro quad copter taking video?
That must be the smallest video cam in the world.

Something in that doesn't make sense.


----------



## 480sparky (May 4, 2015)

Tailgunner said:


> I doubt his 3" Drone had the capacity to video. It would have come in handy though during any trial..."look jury, this is where my client was Tased, right as the drone spirals out of control and slams in the back some some seniors head" lol



From the article:



> He brought his 3-inch micro quadcopter to capture the lava from above,...........





The_Traveler said:


> 3" micro quad copter taking video?
> That must be the smallest video cam in the world.
> 
> Something in that doesn't make sense.



Aerocraft Mini Quadcopter with Micro Camera and Lights Mode 2 Ready to Fly 

Dromida KODO 90mm Micro Quadcopter RTF w Camera

Amazon.com Hubsan X4 H107C 4 Channel 2.4GHz RC Quad Copter with Camera - Red Black Red Black Toys Games


Keep in mind there's probably very little fact-checking in modern new-gathering organizations these days.  It may not have been 3".  It may not have been a _quad_. It may have been an huge octo with a D4 or D810 hanging from it.


----------



## Light Guru (May 4, 2015)

Tailgunner said:


> Oh boy, just read the full article on another thread, the guy was flying a 3" Micro quad chopter. And was Tased out of fear it would hurt someone?



Yes they were afraid it might hurt someone but according to the video here he was tased because he was fleeing the scene and would not stop when the park rangers asked him to. 
Photographer Gets Tazed For Flying A Drone in Hawai i Volcanoes National Park Fstoppers


----------



## Braineack (May 4, 2015)

snerd said:


> To keep the other visitors safe, man! ...



by physically hurting visitors.


tasing someone is the back, is against almost every protocal for use.


----------



## ronlane (May 4, 2015)

Wow, just wow. Wonder if someone thought to switch their camera to video and record that?

Don't know the whole story but I know I'd be ticked for getting tased and arrested when I was just trying to leave because I wasn't allowed to fly my drone.


----------



## Braineack (May 4, 2015)

ticked?  you mean tickled.

like as in tickled with voltage as your face breaks your fall.


----------



## tirediron (May 4, 2015)

None of which answers the questios of why a park ranger is running around with a taser in the first place.


----------



## Designer (May 4, 2015)

Man is faulted for not cooperating.

LEO is faulted for overreaching.


----------



## Overread (May 4, 2015)

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 (May 4, 2015)

Overread said:


> 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 (May 4, 2015)

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 (May 4, 2015)

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 (May 4, 2015)

480sparky said:


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


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 (May 4, 2015)

vintagesnaps said:


> ........ 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 (May 4, 2015)

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 (May 4, 2015)

Overread said:


> ...........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 (May 4, 2015)

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 (May 4, 2015)

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 (May 4, 2015)

Designer said:


> 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 (May 5, 2015)

Tailgunner said:


> 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 (May 5, 2015)

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 (May 5, 2015)

best way to beat the crowd?  use a taser.


----------



## Tailgunner (May 5, 2015)

Designer said:


> Tailgunner said:
> 
> 
> > Man stated 'I don't have ID and I'm leaving."
> ...




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


----------



## 480sparky (May 5, 2015)

Seems he was tased as his running away was somehow deemed a danger to others.


----------



## Tailgunner (May 5, 2015)

JoeW said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



I understand what you're saying being a Texan but this took place in Hawaii. If you watch the videos floating around the net, it shows his drone laying next to him after being tased. It's a small 3" toy, just lights and no camera. It's just a cheap toy he bought off some sidewalk vender.


----------



## 480sparky (May 5, 2015)

Perhaps you can point out where in a video the drone is visible with enough clarity to show there's no camera on it. I see a small drone, with lots of lights on it.  And certainly cannot ascertain whether it has a camera.


----------



## Designer (May 6, 2015)

Tailgunner said:


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


I think I said "uncooperative".  As in; refusing to stop and be identified, running away.  Those things tend to get the full attention of LEOs.


----------



## Braineack (May 6, 2015)

you can be 100% uncooperative and expect not to be tased.  in fact the 9th circuit court of appeals ruled on just that very thing and found the officers used excessive force.

Tasers are especially dangerous on a fleeing suspect because they quite often land on their face as they are unable to use their hand to break their falls.  I'm willing to bet there's policy against using a taser on a fleeing suspect (most departments have policy against it), and the officer must give verbal warnings that he will shoot a taser, and allow the suspect to comply before firing (case law).

All this could have been avoided if the ranger had any sort of tact and didn't feel bitter about not being able to join the real force.


----------



## 407370 (May 6, 2015)

Do any of the Americans commenting on this thread understand how horrific this all sounds to non Americans?

_*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.*_

Raging paranoia is not an excuse to taser someone. The law enforcement officers are acting more like drones than the drones. What happened to the human ability of discernment?


----------



## Braineack (May 6, 2015)

I think there's a law preventing that.


----------



## 480sparky (May 6, 2015)

407370 said:


> Do any of the Americans commenting on this thread understand how horrific this all sounds to non Americans?............



Many 'non-Americans' haven't experienced a 9/11 type event because they're not targets of radical terrorists who merrily send psychologically-misaligned individuals out to kill as many infidels as possible.  There's still a part of this world that terrorists and their targets haven't affected.


----------



## goooner (May 6, 2015)

480sparky said:


> 407370 said:
> 
> 
> > Do any of the Americans commenting on this thread understand how horrific this all sounds to non Americans?............
> ...


We probably should not become too political, but I would wager a good deal that more non-Americans have been killed since 2001 than Americans in terrorist attacks. Be that as it may, a bit of common sense would have told anyone watching this that this was not a terrorist attack in progress.


----------



## 480sparky (May 6, 2015)

goooner said:


> We probably should not become too political, but I would wager a good deal that more non-Americans have been killed since 2001 than Americans in terrorist attacks. Be that as it may, a bit of common sense would have told anyone watching this that this was not a terrorist attack in progress.



I'm not implying that the US has borne the brunt of attacks, nor claim that we've tallied the most casualties.  Just pointing out that there are parts of this speck of dust floating around in the cosmos where terrorism, either where it originates or where it attacks, has not creeped in to.


----------



## tirediron (May 6, 2015)

480sparky said:


> 407370 said:
> 
> 
> > Do any of the Americans commenting on this thread understand how horrific this all sounds to non Americans?............
> ...


 Really?  While there's no denying the fact that the September 11th attacks were horrendous, in the grand scheme of international terrorism, they are a drop in the bucket.  Think of London & Belfast in the 1970s & 80s, Hutu rebel attacks, the Japanese subway incident... I would submit to you that far more of the world has experienced this sort of attack than you may be aware of.


----------



## 480sparky (May 6, 2015)

tirediron said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > 407370 said:
> ...



OK, once again.  No one seems to get this.  Please read it.

I'm not implying that the US has borne the brunt of attacks, nor claim that we've tallied the most casualties. Just pointing out that there are parts of this speck of dust floating around in the cosmos where terrorism, either where it originates or where it attacks, has not creeped in to.





I'll toss this out once more, just in case anyone missed it.

*I'm not implying that the US has borne the brunt of attacks, nor claim that we've tallied the most casualties. Just pointing out that there are parts of this speck of dust floating around in the cosmos where terrorism, either where it originates or where it attacks, has not creeped in to.*


----------



## 407370 (May 6, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Many 'non-Americans' haven't experienced a 9/11 type event because they're not targets of radical terrorists who merrily send psychologically-misaligned individuals out to kill as many infidels as possible.  There's still a part of this world that terrorists and their targets haven't affected.



The world is full of nutters. It is still not an excuse for the use of a taser on a guy flying his toy aircraft.

The purpose of terrorism is to disrupt "_normal life_" seems to me like job done.


----------



## gsgary (May 6, 2015)

480sparky said:


> vintagesnaps said:
> 
> 
> > ........ 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...........
> ...


Don't they usually shoot them with bullets when running away in the US and then have riots ? I think he came off lightly


----------



## 480sparky (May 6, 2015)

gsgary said:


> Don't they usually shoot them with bullets when running away in the US and then have riots ? I think he came off lightly



Depends on if the person has a firearm. Not everyone here is armed like Dirty Harry.


----------



## waday (May 6, 2015)

480sparky said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Don't they usually shoot them with bullets when running away in the US and then have riots ? I think he came off lightly
> ...


It also depends on the person's race.

Deadly Force in Black and White - ProPublica


----------



## timor (May 6, 2015)

480sparky said:


> The man was obviously gathering intelligence for Al Qaeda, videoing the state's  volcanic infrastructure (oh so vital to national defense!) so terrorists could plot to destroy it.


 You just be careful with such a statements. Don't you know, that it is very easy to conceal start of ICBM from volcanic crater ? It looks like an ordinary, small eruption and will be ignored. Especially, if a day before TV will show some fake digital pictures of lava flowing and smoke rising and evacuation of people. The secret is very important, cause this are no defensive installations. So no drones !


----------



## timor (May 6, 2015)

480sparky said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Don't they usually shoot them with bullets when running away in the US and then have riots ? I think he came off lightly
> ...


Depends which agency he belongs to. By today standards Dirty Harry didn't have much.


----------



## Tailgunner (May 6, 2015)

Designer said:


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



Of course it drew attention of law enforcement (if thats what happened), the question is was it excessive. Courts go back back and forth on when an officer can or can't tase someone. Federal Courts have ruled against officers under the same basic circumstances only to turn around and rule for them. 

Anyhow: 

There is no such things as RC planes and helicopters anymore. There is only drones thanks to some creative marketing. In days past, most people never thought twice about it. Now their all over the media and the FAA is about to start issuing license for people to use toys. So do diligence before you just run out and buy one. Federal, State, and local governments are starting to pass laws considering them. People in Colorado can legally shoot drones down while State parks are no fly zones for example.


----------



## vintagesnaps (May 6, 2015)

Of course what ends up in the news are the incidents that are out of the ordinary, not the day to day occurrences that happen to most people in their daily lives. And so much seems to get hyped (and sometimes ends up on sites that are not reputable or necessarily posting accurate information).

In this situation what doesn't make sense to me is why the guy took off, especially being there with his family. I think if an officer approaches someone and the person bolts there's going to be a pursuit; I don't know if it was necessary or if it was excessive to use a taser, but if the guy doesn't stop running the officer would be likely to have to take further action.

I think a difference with the UAVs is the distance they can be flown. I've seen reports of incidents of one almost landing on an interstate, possibly alongside a plane (that wasn't apparently confirmed), one even banged into the top of the space needle. So they aren't backyard toys but are easy enough to buy and don't seem to be well enough regulated yet.


----------



## Braineack (May 7, 2015)

vintagesnaps said:


> In this situation what doesn't make sense to me is why the guy took off, especially being there with his family.



Yes, it does make you question the ranger's version of the accounts.  Witnesses don't seem to claim he was running away, and he had time to bring the chopper down and argue about his ID and state he was leaving with his family in tow.

Dont worry, this guy will be able to afford a new chopper soon: Judge Park Ranger s Tasering of Dog Walker Was Unlawful News Fix KQED News

Althought this officer was cleared of wrongdoing, after he killed a tiny girl doing the same thing:


----------



## 407370 (May 7, 2015)

So have I got this right?
You give tasers to park rangers (I am making the assumption that "park ranger" has some law enforcement connotation in USA) and then dont train them well enough to engage other human beings without use of a taser AND AMERICANS ARE OK WITH THIS?????


----------



## 480sparky (May 7, 2015)

407370 said:


> So have I got this right?
> You give tasers to park rangers (I am making the assumption that "park ranger" has some law enforcement connotation in USA) and then dont train them well enough to engage other human beings without use of a taser AND AMERICANS ARE OK WITH THIS?????



Um........... no.


That's part of the reason there's been so many responses to this thread about it.


----------



## waday (May 7, 2015)

407370 said:


> So have I got this right?
> You give tasers to park rangers (I am making the assumption that "park ranger" has some law enforcement connotation in USA) and then dont train them well enough to engage other human beings without use of a taser AND AMERICANS ARE OK WITH THIS?????


Agree with @480sparky. We're not all stereotypes. It's best to keep an open mind, so that people don't make the same stereotypes about other countries' citizens.


----------



## Braineack (May 7, 2015)

you mean like communists who enjoy starving to death?

we don't have the full story, probably will never get it.

his eventual lawsuit will get settled out of court, ensuring that no case law gets established to prevent this from happening in the future.


----------



## 407370 (May 7, 2015)

waday said:


> Agree with @480sparky. We're not all stereotypes. It's best to keep an open mind, so that people don't make the same stereotypes about other countries' citizens.


The last thing I would ever do is apply stereotypes to any nationality. 
The FAA and some other aviation authorities are making up some truly ridiculous rules for toys that fly. The quadcopter is a fantastic invention but will be outlawed by paranoia and that really bugs me for some reason.


----------



## 480sparky (May 7, 2015)

407370 said:


> ............ The quadcopter is a fantastic invention but will be outlawed by paranoia and that really bugs me for some reason.



The same thing is happening to cameras today.


----------



## Designer (May 7, 2015)

You can always count on government agencies to over-react.


----------



## snerd (May 7, 2015)

407370 said:


> So have I got this right?
> You give tasers to park rangers (I am making the assumption that "park ranger" has some law enforcement connotation in USA) and then dont train them well enough to engage other human beings without use of a taser AND AMERICANS ARE OK WITH THIS?????


The majority of us are okay with it. That's how these asinine laws get passed............... we give up a little freedom for a "perceived" sense of security. It's sickening, and completely contrary to what the people who founded this country fought for. And it is "way" worse than most folks even know. But hey, we're safe from the boogymen!!


----------



## 480sparky (May 7, 2015)

snerd said:


> The majority of us are totally ignorant and merrily oblivious to it.........



FIFY.


----------



## Braineack (May 7, 2015)

> The majority of us are totally ignorant and merrily oblivious to it.........



agreed.

Like I could tell you there is a systemic problem with law enforcement shooting dogs (among other things) and you wouldnt believe me.

then I could give you over 50 news articles of police shooting dogs in 2014 alone and you'd be like: I'm not so merry nor ignorant anymore.


----------



## snerd (May 7, 2015)

I've purposely not responded to cops shooting dogs, because one sumbeech did exactly that to my grandson's dog, right in front of my grandson!! Both he and my son were there, along with about 10 of the neighborhood kids! Dog was sauntering up, but it was a pit bull, so naturally he freaked and panicked. Pulled, shot, it bounced "off" the street, into the dog. Totally insane. Nothing was done about it, as all he had to say was he feared for his life. The kids were totally weirded out by watching him shooting and killing the dog right in front of them. You could see the look of astonishment and then fear and then confusion on their faces. This was all related to me by my son. Of course, the dog should have been on a leash, he had just darted out the back yard gate when my grandson opened it. Neighbor freaked and called cops. Dog was having a blast evading grandson trying to catch him, kids were helping too, they've all played with the dog before. Cop arrives, boom. Dog dead.


----------



## AlanKlein (May 7, 2015)

It's a good thing the cop didn't grab his gun instead of his taser. Ooops.  *rat-a-tat*-_*tat*_


----------



## Tailgunner (May 7, 2015)

Braineack said:


> Yes, it does make you question the ranger's version of the accounts.  Witnesses don't seem to claim he was running away, and he had time to bring the chopper down and argue about his ID and state he was leaving with his family in tow.



Exactly, the photo floating around shows the small copter next him after being tased laying down. The guy landed his copter and started walking away when he was tased. I was taught in my CHL class (conceal handgun license) that you couldn't shoot someone in the back while they was walking or running away. This is a gray area even for Law Enforcement, they can't just simply shoot someone in the back walking or running away...especially for flying some toy.


----------



## Designer (May 7, 2015)

Tailgunner said:


> ..you couldn't shoot someone in the back while they was walking or running away. This is a gray area even for Law Enforcement,..


Why is that a gray area?

Seems pretty much either black or white to me.


----------



## Tailgunner (May 7, 2015)

Designer said:


> Tailgunner said:
> 
> 
> > ..you couldn't shoot someone in the back while they was walking or running away. This is a gray area even for Law Enforcement,..
> ...



Gray area is proudly the wrong words.

Lets say a bad guy just shot someone dead and runs away. No one is going to think twice about a police office shooting the bad guy in order to stop him/her from getting away. No jury is going to convect them on it. CHL holders on the other hand can't by law shoot anyone running away.


----------



## 480sparky (May 7, 2015)

Tailgunner said:


> Gray area is proudly the wrong words.
> 
> Lets say a bad guy just shot someone dead and runs away. No one is going to think twice about a police office shooting the bad guy in order to stop him/her from getting away. No jury is going to convect them on it. CHL holders on the other hand can't by law shoot anyone running away.



Sorry.  You've been watching too many movies. No police officer is going to get a "Get Out of Jail Free" card when they just up and shoot someone (even if said someone just committed murder) for the _purpose of keeping them from getting away_.  Not no way, not no how.  Running away poses ZERO THREAT, both to the officer and the public.  And zero threat does not allow lethal force.


----------



## 407370 (May 7, 2015)

Tailgunner said:


> Lets say a bad guy just shot someone dead and runs away. No one is going to think twice about a police office shooting the bad guy in order to stop him/her from getting away. No jury is going to convect them on it. CHL holders on the other hand can't by law shoot anyone running away.


The difference in public perception of what police procedure should be in specific circumstances varies a lot in different countries. I despair at the thought of any country that shares your perceptions of when it is OK / NOT OK to shoot someone.


----------



## Tailgunner (May 7, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Tailgunner said:
> 
> 
> > Gray area is proudly the wrong words.
> ...



Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

_"At common law, the *fleeing felon rule* permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight"
_
Example: Officer Wilson of the Ferguson MO police pursed Michael Brown, shot him, and was not charged. It happens.


----------



## Tailgunner (May 7, 2015)

407370 said:


> Tailgunner said:
> 
> 
> > Lets say a bad guy just shot someone dead and runs away. No one is going to think twice about a police office shooting the bad guy in order to stop him/her from getting away. No jury is going to convect them on it. CHL holders on the other hand can't by law shoot anyone running away.
> ...



People, is a Fleeing felon! The above mention is a suspect who has proven to be a deadly threat to others after killing one person. The United States Supreme Court has already ruled Officers can use deadly force on such fleeing felons.

*Tennessee v. Garner*, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly forceto prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

A civilian on the other hand can not.


----------



## 480sparky (May 7, 2015)

Tailgunner said:


> People, is a Fleeing felon! The above mention is a suspect who has proven to be a deadly threat to others after killing one person. The United States Supreme Court has already ruled Officers can use deadly force on such fleeing felons.
> 
> *Tennessee v. Garner*, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly forceto prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."



Yea, the papers & newcasts are just chock-full of stories about deaths and injuries caused by felonious tourists flying 3" drones.    So what's this guy gonna do?  Threaten others with his 3" drone? Is flying a 3" drone now a felony?


----------



## Braineack (May 8, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Tailgunner said:
> 
> 
> > Lets say a bad guy just shot someone dead and runs away. No one is going to think twice about a police office shooting the bad guy in order to stop him/her from getting away. No jury is going to convect them on it. CHL holders on the other hand can't by law shoot anyone running away.
> ...



You haven't read enough news.

DAs rarely pursue charges against officers and if/when they do, they are able to manipulate Grand Juries to exonerate the officer, not indict.  And that's typically only after the police investigate themselves if they did anything wrong.

For example:  Let's say I was arrested for shooting someone.  A DA would present all the evidence in the world to show a grand jury that there is reason to indict me and go to trial.  The would present facts in a way that would show my guilt/malice, they'd bring up any history I have of violence, suggest a motive, basically drag my name through mud in order to get the indictment.

When it's an officer of the law, they present only the evidence needed in order to show a grand jury_ there was no crime_.  Some might refer to it as a dog and pony show.  Then they have the support/pressure of the police union.

I've read a plethora of news stories in the last year or so where an officer shot someone unarmed or in the back and was never charged/punished for it.

Here's one: 

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available


This happened last year, I don't believe any officer has yet to be charged with a crime after they investigated themselves and found they were justified in shooting a fleeing suspect in the back.

There is a wrongful death case pending for this shooting, but what happens is the officers involved have qualified immunity, so they can never really be held personally responsible for crimes they commit.  Beyond that, they are always settled out of court, so lets say the family wins $6 million dollars, the only one that loses is the taxpayer and the city.  The money doesn't even come out of the department in question so they have no incentive whatsoever to change behavior/policy.

Then let's say an officer does get fired from the force, he'll just end up at a different department doing all the same bad things.

There are myriad systems/levels in place is designed to protect an officer from getting in any sort of trouble or facing any punishment.

example:  these officers left an innocent person, without being charged with a crime, to die in custody.  He had to drink his own urine in order to survive his kidnapping.

He was awarded 4.1 million in his settlement.

The officers faced no charges.  They weren't charged with false arrest, kidnapping, false imprisonment, nothing.  Their punishment for depriving someone of freedom, hospitalizing him, traumatizing him and nearly killing him?  a five day suspension.

Officials criticize DEA apos s light punishment of agents who forgot man in cell for 5 days - LA Times


----------



## waday (May 8, 2015)

Here's a case where the officer is being charged with homicide.
Hummelstown police officer charged with homicide



> Mearkle chased him behind the house and used her stun gun, striking Kassick in the back with the probes, Marsico said.
> 
> Kassick fell to the snow-covered ground and was lying face down when Mearkle ordered him to show his hands. She continued to use the stun gun while Kassick was on the ground, then shot him twice in the back.
> 
> The district attorney said Kassick did not have a gun and never brandished anything that could have been viewed as a potential weapon.



Oh yeah, he was pulled over for an expired inspection sticker. If that's the penalty, I should go check mine right now...


----------



## Braineack (May 8, 2015)

It's a valid reason to be stopped, yes. Tased, no.


----------



## Designer (May 8, 2015)

TPF handles not only civil law, but criminal law as well.  

Just ask us!


----------



## waday (May 8, 2015)

Designer said:


> TPF handles not only civil law, but criminal law as well.
> 
> Just ask us!


Don't worry. We all work pro bono. No retainers from us.


----------



## Braineack (May 8, 2015)

well, ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse*, so it pays to be in the know.


*unless you're an officer--it's case law that you don't actually have to know/understand the laws you are enforcing giving you limitless RAS and PC.


----------



## 480sparky (May 8, 2015)

Everyone is tossing out case law in defense of tazing someone who _may not have even committed a crime_.  For all we know, NO LAW WAS BROKEN.  The ranger asked the operator to 'bring it down', which apparently he did.  And if no crime was committed, the ranger has no cause and he's free to leave.


----------



## vintagesnaps (May 8, 2015)

He was charged and has a court date. Here's a story from a local news station in Hawaii and an AP (Associated Press) article that was published by a number of legit new sources/newspapers (link not working now).
Volcanoes ranger uses taser on man flying drone More Local News - KITV Home

It doesn't seem he was tased just because he was flying a drone, it was after he'd been asked three times to bring it down, refused to identify himself, then took off running and was heading toward a cliff with a 500 foot drop. At that point the options probably weren't good since he seems to have refused to cooperate with what he was being asked to do, and the ranger obviously couldn't let him keep running toward a fall that he most likely would not have survived.

Running and refusing to identify himself are suspicious behaviors and would indicate there could likely be something else going on with him - a suspended license? a warrant? previous record? What made him run off? he certainly didn't seem to be thinking of his wife and kids when he took off. Maybe there's more to the story that will come out eventually.

I read (and can't find it again now) that rangers in national parks have been authorized to carry tasers since 2008 and there have only been about 5 times that one has been used.


----------



## crimbfighter (Jun 8, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Tailgunner said:
> 
> 
> > Gray area is proudly the wrong words.
> ...



While I usually agree with you sparky, in this case, you're incorrect. "Greater Danger Theory" allows for the use of deadly force on a person if the escape of the person poses an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to others. It's not only trained in LE nation wide, it's also supported by case law. Make no mistake, it's not a "get out of jail free card," those don't exist, but it is legal under the right circumstances and fully supported by our supreme courts so long as the officer can articulate the threat. And you can bet that someone who just committed a murder poses an imminent threat to anyone they encounter next.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 8, 2015)

crimbfighter said:


> ...........And you can bet that someone who just committed a murder poses an imminent threat to anyone they encounter next.



And the 'greater danger' is.......??? He might fly a drone again?

Well, that's certainly reason enough to taze someone.


----------



## crimbfighter (Jun 8, 2015)

480sparky said:


> crimbfighter said:
> 
> 
> > ...........And you can bet that someone who just committed a murder poses an imminent threat to anyone they encounter next.
> ...


I'm not applying it to the case that's being discussed. I won't weigh in on that case because I don't have all the facts. And i don't mean the "facts" that are posted online and in news outlets.. Frankly, only after a thorough and comprehensive investigation, with both internal AND external investigators, should we be letting ourselves get bent out of shape about what did or didn't happen. I'm stating that as a general rule for using deadly force on a fleeing person. Also keep in mind, the use of force must still be "objectively reasonable" when the force is used, and if it is not, then the officer could face charges or personal civil liability in a lawsuit.

Also, fortunately, most states have imposed stricter laws on use of force with regard to fleeing persons. Remember, federal case law is the minimum standard, and individual states can enact stricter applicable laws. In Wisconsin, for example, the officer cannot use deadly force on a person simply because they committed a felony and are fleeing. The officer needs to be able to articulate the threat that person poses. And yes, I reiterate that someone who just committed a murder poses an imminent threat to the next person they encounter. Flying a drone? Not so much.. But again, until ALL the facts are known, I withhold judgement on the officer and the person who got tazed.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 8, 2015)

Well from prior experience I can say that running from the police rarely if ever works out well.  They tend to get just a tad huffy when you do that.


----------



## Designer (Jun 8, 2015)

So lessee if I've got it:

1. Don't do anything stupid.
2. Obey lawful orders.
3. Always tell the truth.
4. Thank the nice officer.


----------



## BananaRepublic (Jun 9, 2015)

Have you not seen COPS on CBS


----------



## Designer (Jun 9, 2015)

BananaRepublic said:


> Have you not seen COPS on CBS


Asking me?

No.


----------



## BananaRepublic (Jun 10, 2015)

Designer said:


> BananaRepublic said:
> 
> 
> > Have you not seen COPS on CBS
> ...



It sums up the whole shoot first ask questions later strategy


----------



## Designer (Jun 10, 2015)

BananaRepublic said:


> It sums up the whole shoot first ask questions later strategy


That's just one of the reasons I don't watch.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 10, 2015)

BananaRepublic said:


> Have you not seen COPS on CBS



Yes.

Ok, so revised list.

1. Always have a shirt on.  Otherwise you will be going to jail.
2. If your drunk or stoned, keep your stupid butt at home
3. Always tell the truth, "I want my lawyer."  See, that's the truth.
4. Thank the nice officer.  Do not, however, say "I love you man." as your pretty much admitting to DUI right there.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 10, 2015)

BananaRepublic said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > BananaRepublic said:
> ...



I guess it's a whole lot easier to jump to that sort of conclusion when you aren't out there every day risking life and limb, not knowing if every time you pull someone over for speeding if they don't have a weapon of some sort and are just waiting for you to make a mistake.

Not so easy when you have a matter of seconds at most to make a decision that might cost you your life if you guess wrong.  So on the whole I tend to give the boys in blue a bit of latitude in this regard.

In this case the guy was tased, which isn't fun but it's not the worst thing that could have happened by a long shot.  But when you won't obey a cop and take off running for no apparent reason, well you just have to sort of expect that kind of response.


----------



## BananaRepublic (Jun 11, 2015)

Im not from the US so i have a cliched view but there is a logic to it just seems extreme at times.


----------

