The head of the National Park Service in Alaska made a visit to a village in the interior to apologize for the actions of two of the agency's rangers.
The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner reported Friday that Sue Masica apologized for the aggressive actions of two rangers on the Yukon River last summer.
The apology was not connected to the highly-publicized arrest and trial of 71-year-old Jim Wilde. It was connected to a run-in the same two rangers had a month earlier with another man -- Tim Henry of Eagle.
The rangers handcuffed and detained Henry for about two hours for allegedly refusing to identify himself.
That's what happens when you don't have a SWAT team available to shoot the perpetrator for you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Inasmuch as the go-to response of most agencies seems to be calling out the paramilitary SWAT (cue video), it might just be the better part of valor to simply produce a driver's license. One needs to pick one's battles, after all.
Of course, provoking an over-the-top response to highlight the agency's policies, and getting an apology, may have been what the guy wanted.
Dang, Bob, you're getting kind of obsessive, aren't you? Occasional police overreaction, like occasional soldier overreaction, kind of goes with the territory, doesn't it?
@wally: funny role reversal isn't it, Wally? You're the one that's supposed to be from the 60's counterculture, not me.
And you're the one who's supposed to respect the enforcers of our laws, not me.
@wally: I'll respect them when they behave in a manner worthy of respect. Can't view it as all black and white, Wally. Gotta have nuance.
Feel the same way about our military? Like some Navy SEALS a year or two back? Remember that one?
@wally: you mean our hero SEALs who killed Osama bin Laden? With help from the CIA, whose agents Attorney General Holder still wants to prosecute for torture? There's a whole world of nuance there for you to enjoy, Wally.
Wait, what? You think bin Laden was killed a year or two back?
@wally: we're straying from your original point, which was to chide me for being "obsessive" over "occasional" police overreaction. I, who probably follow the subject much more closely than you do, would characterize it as "frequently," not to be confused with "routinely" which would be the next step up. I think that, compared with the time period of SWAT's first popularity (1970's), that SWAT teams are more aggressive and likely to escalate a confrontation with civilians than in the past, and are used for purposes for which they weren't originally tasked, such as the service of the search warrant in the Guerena case.
@wally: mission creep, it is called.
Post a Comment