Run-ins with authorities

[Cross Country]

Markskor's recount is a profound commentary and I believe should not be minimized by anyone. We are a country of laws and what happened was illegal, criminal, brutal, absolutely unacceptable and a lesson to ALL of us. I too have had encounters with rangers acting illegally. They, of all people, should (in my opinion) act within the law at ALL times. They represent the law and all of us, out country, and our liberties. They (in my opinion) need to err on the side of liberty nearly every time because power corrupts. Is there anybody here who doesn't believe that? Markskor"s account is not unique but nevertheless (I believe) it should be extremely noteworthy and educational to all of us.

[gdurkee]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Where to begin amongst this strange mishmash of distorted information??

I don't think they had the authority to pull you over in an unmarked vehicle. Your offensive gesture is protected under the first amendment meaning you did not have to exit the vehicle or submit to a search.

Mostly, no. That's not correct. An officer can pull you over and, in an unmarked vehicle, presumably had "take down "lights to identify the vehicle and occupant as LE -- or why would Strider have pulled over? The offensive gesture might be protected if it went to court, but if you refuse to pull over you're just setting off a whole chain of stuff you don't want. You have to obey all lawful orders, and you're not really in a position to determine what's lawful until the officer tells you why you've been pulled over. If it is unlawful, then you can complain, file a civil action, whatever you want.

Yosemite has its own police force (straw hats, horses, and badges), its own legal classifications, its own jail, its own judge, and its own specific procedures for handling any infringing situation,

The "police force" are called rangers, both then (1970) and now. The "legal classifications" are called, um, laws -- they're federal and not unique to Yosemite. You went into a jail -- exactly what kind of security do you think a jail has, whatever jurisdiction you're in? Let's not over dramatize it because it's in the bucolic setting of Yosemite. There's a lot of authentically bad, unpleasant people in the world. When you get those sorts of numbers of visitors, X% of them are going to need some level of intervention from law enforcement (aka rangers). So when someone is arrested, would you rather they hang out in jail and are then transported 2 hours to the one in Merced, then wait a day or more to be seen by a federal judge or, as in Yosemite, seen by the resident federal magistrate?

The building itself imposes its somber presence on any who dare enter there.

The building used to be the maintenance shop. Get a grip... .

There we were, in the green soft meadow, diverse groups of people, circles… in the tall grass sitting, playing music, “grooving on the scene”, and getting high. .....
From out of the north hidden, out from behind the trees, unannounced, 30 – 50 mounted police charged violently into the previously peaceful “hippie” circles. Riot helmets now replaced the familiar straw ranger hat, batons swinging freely…horses galloping…vengeance rampant. Not seeming to care whether they attacked innocent or guilty, anybody in the meadow, Stoneman Meadow, became fair game for anyone caught under the federal police onslaught.

Well, you get some points. It was badly handled in the sense that rangers then weren't trained for riot or crowd control. Neither were the police in Berkeley or the National Guard at Kent State. There's an unfortunate learning curve.

You forgot to mention the bikers out in Stoneman Meadow with their motorcycles. You seem to have missed several rangers who spent the previous day and the day of what became a riot out talking to people and asking them to leave the meadow because of the damage being done, the garbage being left and the overall effect of having 300+ people getting high and grooving in a fragile meadow in a National Park. And the haze of THC may also have caused you to forget the warnings and orders to disperse delivered by bullhorn ahead of the "charge." This is all on film.

Markskor's recount is a profound commentary and I believe should not be minimized by anyone. We are a country of laws and what happened was illegal, criminal, brutal, absolutely unacceptable and a lesson to ALL of us.

I don't want to come down too hard here, but the lesson is try to get the facts right. It was none of those things.

No question it was a bad day for NPS rangers and their image. It's likely it could have been handled much better but poor training on the part of the rangers and unreasoning defiance on the part of the gathering doomed the whole thing. Reasoning with the people in the meadow was not working. The Berkeley Barb had been running articles encouraging

young, opinionated, stupid, and cocky

people just like you to go to Yosemite and take over the park. How do you think that was going to go?

The semi-good news is NPS radically changed their training and standards starting shortly after that. They tried to gear programs more towards the "young, stupid & cocky" to educate them on what parks are about and why certain things are not allowed. And, best of all, they hired me to "better relate to youth" -- ta da!

There's this disconnect in accepting the fact that parks need law enforcement rangers to protect the parks from all sorts of people running amok -- drunks on roads, vandals, people with guns etc. Two weeks ago, a guy who had just shot several people had blown past a chain control at Mount Rainier. When a ranger set up to stop him, he shot and killed her. The road ended at a snow play area where families were enjoying a day in their park. He was stopped before he got there. What do you suppose might have happened had trained law enforcement rangers not responded to stop him?

She left behind a husband (also a ranger) and two small children.

They (in my opinion) need to err on the side of liberty nearly every time because power corrupts.

Sure, there's a few (a very few) bad rangers out there but I gotta say, incidents such as are implied here (gestapo tactics...) are incredibly rare when actually examined. Rangers have an assault rate on them almost the equivalent to that of a city police department. I'm not sure what is meant by "erring on the side of liberty" but I do know that the FBI determined it was the friendly, trusting officer (all officers nationwide) who was most likely to get killed in the line of duty.

Jeez, this was way too long. But this black helicopter, jack-booted thug paranoid nonsense drives me absolutely buggy. By any standard you'd care to name, we have a much more open, enfranchised and freer society than, say, 30 years ago.

George

[markskor]

George,
Completely agree that you Rangers always have had a tough row to hoe; indeed Yosemite/ our Sierra desperately needs you guys and I personally respect everything your thankless job entails. Just wanted to say that outright.

That being said, tape or no tape, respectfully must disagree with a few items you talked about that day:
"You forgot to mention the bikers out in Stoneman Meadow with their motorcycles."
Quite possible that there were a few bikers in the crowds wearing colors...parked among the hippies.

"You seem to have missed several rangers who spent the previous day and the day of what became a riot out talking to people and asking them to leave the meadow because of the damage being done, the garbage being left and the overall effect of having 300+ people getting high and grooving in a fragile meadow in a National Park."

In the 4 - 5 hours we were out in the meadow the day before, I did not see one ranger come out there all day. The meadow was then legal open space - no ropes, many well worn paths/bike trails winding through...did not see any damage being done. Probably there was some trash strewn about, but distinctly remember our side (near the trees) discussing this very thing at the time and the majority making a concerted effort to police the area. BTW, what does "fragile meadow" actually mean?

"And the haze of THC may also have caused you to forget the warnings and orders to disperse delivered by bullhorn ahead of the "charge." This is all on film."


The bullhorn "warning" given was the designated signal to charge; there was no warning ahead of time. Much akin to the green light being a warning that a drag race is about to start.

"No question it was a bad day for NPS rangers and their image. It's likely it could have been handled much better but poor training on the part of the rangers and unreasoning defiance on the part of the gathering doomed the whole thing. Reasoning with the people in the meadow was not working."
Maybe naive back then but did not see any "reasoning" being done, at least not on our side of the meadow as we were all quite watchful of any authority figures coming out...fearing a bust. Nobody approached us or warned us that day, or the next day either...nobody.

Whatever...I readily admit that we were the most guilty party but no rationalization on anyone's part will ever convince me that the park was totally "innocent" that fateful day.

"By any standard you'd care to name, we have a much more open, enfranchised and freer society than, say, 30 years ago."

My God, that was 42 years ago now and you are indeed correct that our Yosemite is a much more enlightened, understanding place now than way back then, or maybe I have just wised up since 1970. Getting hit on the head by a charging horsemen wielding a baton will do that to you.
Mark

[oldranger]

George, I've been waiting for you to step in, thanks! It is funny how THC impacts ones perception. I remember back around 70 or 71 when my ex and I used to regularly attend a gathering of people in Santa Barbara. We would carry on "intellectual discussions," drink Red Mountain wine ($1.80 per gallon jug), and inhale a little ... One time we were about an hour late in arriving and the discussion was in full swing and ... completely incomprehensible! What we could understand made no sense. At any rate that was the last of that gathering we attended as we realized we weren't quite as enlightened as we thought.

Mike

[rlown]

My God, that was 42 years ago now...
Mark

Quit it! you're making me feel old..

[RoguePhotonic]

You have to obey all lawful orders, and you're not really in a position to determine what's lawful until the officer tells you why you've been pulled over. If it is unlawful, then you can complain, file a civil action, whatever you want.

No I do agree you must pull over if they have lights. I was lacking in information but your right that he must have or other wise why would he had pulled over at all. Indeed you must pull over but then at that point is where the laws come into effect. I don't know current California laws on the subject but in the past a driver was not required to exit the vehicle unless being placed under arrest. That being a reference to him being slammed against the car. At this point it would depend on why this officer says your being pulled over. If he states it's because of this offensive gesture then you can follow the fact that it wasn't illegal. Your key statement is you must obey "lawful orders" and you are not "required" to follow any non lawful ones. This line of action of course can get ugly in a hurry and that's why I said "if you want to go there". I personally am glad to die at any time in defense of liberty and that's why I take such a hard stance in these matters.

Reasoning with the people in the meadow was not working.

This is where it seems like a step is missing and that is simply to make arrests. If a crowd is breaking the law and you can't reason with them at all then the next step as an officer is to make an arrest isn't it?

I do have to point out that although I have a very hostile outlook against Police I do hold Rangers as a separate group and of course hold both back country and front country Rangers in totally different groups. The "gestapo tactics" IS common place among every day Police but certainly is not and is rare amongst Rangers.

I'd say anyone that claims we have a more free society today has not been paying attention though. This country is one step away from rearranging the stars into a swastika.

[rlown]

I'd say anyone that claims we have a more free society today has not been paying attention though. This country is one step away from rearranging the stars into a swastika.

how so? you're how old? 26?

[gdurkee]

I'd say anyone that claims we have a more free society today has not been paying attention though. This country is one step away from rearranging the stars into a swastika.

I second Russ' question. That's what I keep coming back to. With all this (mostly) right wing stuff about how we're losing our rights; one step away from a swastika on the flag (a swastika -- really!??!) etc., I've yet to hear a concrete explanation of what rights they (you) feel have been lost.

Specifically, what things do you feel you can't do now that you could, say 10 years ago? Has your freedom of speech been infringed? Have you been prevented from voting? Have you had police come into your house without a warrant (other than in hot pursuit in a felony -- that's allowed)?

Note: not what you feel are threats, but actual loss of actual rights in your lifetime, or even going back 50+ years. Facts. Facts would be nice.

The strength of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is that while, yes, some of these rights have been threatened over the centuries, the protections are real and the threats have always been corrected. Always. Darned brilliant guys, those Founders... .

George

[balzaccom]

OK--now we are way off topic...

But here are my thoughts:

1. Nowhere near a swastika, and yes, the far right and the far left both take extreme positions on this. But they are supposed to---they're extremists!

2. The loss of civil rights by ANY Americans is the loss of rights of all Americans. There are Americans on the no-fly list whose only crime is to share a name with someone else. Seems like with all of our sophisticated technology someone could do a better job than that.

3. I AM concerned about the kinds of surveillance that is now allowed under the patriot act. I believe that those ARE rights to privacy that we no longer have. The government now has the power to search and seize any thing at any time, as long as they can 'construct" a case of reasonable doubt about terrorism. That includes searching your computer to see if you have been researching or reading about any number of a wide variety of topics. Remember when librarians used to fight search warrants? Can't be done now, not under the Patriot Act.

4. I fly 125,000 miles a year or so. The TSA inspects my baggage any time they want, and for any reason the want. They can scan me, irradiate me, or pat me down any time they want. And no, they don't have to show reasonable cause.

Was that true a generation ago? No, it wasn't. And I wish I thought that the benefits outweighed the hassles...

[RoguePhotonic]

how so? you're how old? 26?

27 and age is completely irrelevant. I know in todays world where people don't know what books are and probably cannot even read the extent of human history only extends within their own life time but for everyone else the information is there.

And I do agree that this is going way off topic. I mean we are moving into a line of conversation that can get very extensive and hostile in a hurry.

Also liberty is not a partisan issue so we don't need to bash left or right when the entire system is a paradigm intended to give the illusion of choice when both parties are bought and paid for by the same people. Two sides of the same coin...

balzaccom made some good points about how the most important aspect of liberty we have lost is our right to be safe against the government. That is after all what the constitution is really all about. Not what you are allow to do but what they are not allowed to do to you! Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, the new NDAA. A provision that was just barely defeated in NDAA would have allowed the government to hold you indefinitely even if you were found innocent by trial.

As I said we could start going on pretty deep on these subjects and it's never constructive I have found.

But the Nazi reference is plenty accurate. The Muslims are the new Jews, 9/11 / Reichstag fire, Patriot act / Enabling Act, Homeland Security / Reichstag Security...

As for gestapo actions and policies by police forces would be another major subject of it's own but why don't you tell me why I completely hate police to the point it poisons my soul and I have never even been given a ticket for anything in my life. I don't even break any laws. So why should I hate them so much? Think about it...