I don't know how this could be justified

[The Suburban Hippie]

I don't know how they could have gotten away with this.

If they invalidated the first two offenses, one being that the man was not legally able to fly his quad in a national park, how could they have the right to detain him if they couldn't prove he was breaking the law in the first place?

A police officer doesn't have the right to detain you and use force for nothing. Unless of course it was a plea deal, but I wouldn't think that would work....

Yes, I am all for the first charge. It is illegal to fly a drone in a national park. However, if they didn't find he was doing something illigal, how in the world would it be justified for them to taze him?

FYI, I do think the guy seems like an idiot, just questioning the law here...

Judge: Park ranger’s use of taser on drone operator was justified - sUAS News

 

[bbfpv]

The judge didn't invalidate the first two offenses, he just threw out the charges. Dropped charges are not uncommon, especially when they are of a lesser crime than the crime the offender is being charged with. It doesn't mean the crime didn't happen, just that the judge doesn't see a point in making the charge considering all else.

 

[QuadBart]

In addition to what bbfpv said....

Regarding your comment; "A police officer doesn't have the right to detain you and use force for nothing"

Sure the Park Rangers had the right to detain and question him and use force... They saw him breaking Park rules, they directed him to do something and he did not comply... In the real world LEOs use "Probable Cause" which is really an open-ended reason to stop and question citizens for just about anything....

I don't know how they could have gotten away with this.

If they invalidated the first two offenses, one being that the man was not legally able to fly his quad in a national park, how could they have the right to detain him if they couldn't prove he was breaking the law in the first place?

A police officer doesn't have the right to detain you and use force for nothing. Unless of course it was a plea deal, but I wouldn't think that would work....

Yes, I am all for the first charge. It is illegal to fly a drone in a national park. However, if they didn't find he was doing something illigal, how in the world would it be justified for them to taze him?

FYI, I do think the guy seems like an idiot, just questioning the law here...

Judge: Park ranger’s use of taser on drone operator was justified - sUAS News

 

[Buckaye]

In addition to what bbfpv said....

Regarding your comment; "A police officer doesn't have the right to detain you and use force for nothing"

Sure the Park Rangers had the right to detain and question him and use force... They saw him breaking Park rules, they directed him to do something and he did not comply... In the real world LEOs use "Probable Cause" which is really an open-ended reason to stop and question citizens for just about anything....

While I think the guy should have just landed the drone and handled the LEO with respect, I find it pretty hard to justify using a taser to bring the guy down unless the LEO felt threatened in some way. From the newspaper clip I can't tell if the guy was threatening the LEO at all - but there was two days of testimony which makes me think there's probably more to the story that we know...

 

[Air Ontario]

Police as agent's of the "State" have authority to have a "casual" interaction with the public during a determination of a crime. They are allowed by law, Terry v Ohio, to stop and even frisk for officer protection.

In this case similar interaction occured between the police and the subject and the subject was placed under arrest. When he resisted after being lawfully seized under the 4th Amendment, he placed himself in a position of being forceably seized by the "State" thru escalated means, such as tasing.

 

[Droner412]

He was tazed for running away, not for flying his drone.

 

[Droner412]

Police as agent's of the "State" have authority to have a "casual" interaction with the public during a determination of a crime. They are allowed by law, Terry v Ohio, to stop and even frisk for officer protection.

In this case similar interaction occured between the police and the subject and the subject was placed under arrest. When he resisted after being lawfully seized under the 4th Amendment, he placed himself in a position of being forceably seized by the "State" thru escalated means, such as tasing.

The drone operator was doing something illegal though so Terry vs. Ohio doesn't really come into play.. In my opinion anyhow

 

[LuvMyTJ]

This was recently discussed here. Be sure and check the search or look at the suggested post at the bottom as you are crafting yours.
Thread closed. Please comment further here - Hawaii Park Ranger's Use of Taser Justified