An internal investigation into a ranger who "tased" a Native American visitor at Petroglyph National Monument determined that he acted appropriately. The individual who was tased was cited for going off trail, providing false information, and failing to obey the ranger.
“The National Park Service remains committed to respecting the rights and dignity of every individual. This incident provided a learning experience for us to build on how we incorporate Tribal and Pueblo perspectives in our everyday work,” said National Park Service Regional Director Mike Reynolds in a statement issued Friday. “In the months ahead, we will be working with the Pueblo and Tribal communities to develop ways to better coordinate use of the area for ceremonial and religious purposes.”
The incident occurred December 27 when the unidentified ranger approached the man and his female companion to ask them to return to the marked trail they had left because they were "off trail on rocks containing petroglyphs," according to the Park Service.
"This is not a big deal, this is a simple warning," said the ranger, whose body camera captured the interaction.
While the ranger explained that it was his job to protect the monument because it is considered sacred to tribes, and noted that there had been past issues with graffiti, the man responded that, "We don't do that."
The ranger told the couple that he just needed their names so he could check to see if they previously had been warned about going off trail in the monument, but the man said he wasn't going to provide that information. His companion did provide their names, which the National Park Service later said were fictitious.
"You don't need my identification, sir," the man told the ranger. "Native Americans and the goverment and the law don't mesh well, you know that."
The man, who later identified himself to news reporters as Darrell House, walked away while the ranger contacted the monument's dispatch center to run a check on the names he was given. When the ranger caught up to the couple, who were now back on a trail, the man again refused to answer the ranger's questions.
"So, let me get this straight, you'd like to escalate this contact by refusing to identify yourself, and then in which case you're going to be detained until I can ID you?" the ranger asked.
As the man walked away, the ranger followed him, asking that he stop or he risked being "tased." The ranger then asked the man to give his small dog to his companion.
"My dog ain't going anywhere," replied the man, who had picked up the small dog.
"Sir, please give her the dog," the ranger said.
"My dog ain't going anywhere," the man again replied.
"OK, here's what I need you to do. Stop right now sir. Stop walking. Stop walking or you may be tased. Stop walking," the ranger said.
While the man stood holding his dog, the ranger could be seen aiming his Taser at the man. The man refused to give his companion the dog and started yelling "help," at which point the ranger shot him with the stun gun.
The Park Service investigation "determined that the law enforcement ranger's actions were consistent with agency policy and appropriate given the totality of the circumstances, including policy to preserve the significant cultural resources of the petroglyphs," the statement issued Friday said. Additionally, it noted that the Park Service "has worked to renew its commitment to Tribal engagement and is drawing on community partnerships to strengthen collaboration and cultural awareness within and outside of the monument."
With input from local Pueblos and Tribes, the Park Service is working to implement a plan to strengthen protection of the sensitive cultural resources found in the park through a designated trail system.
Park staff also recently met with representatives from the Ancestral Lands Conservation Corps, a long-term partner of the park, to identify ways to improve incorporation of Pueblo and Tribal work crews, youth and families into park programming and projects.
The National Park Service has also sought cultural awareness training for its employees and expert guidance from the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center and will continue to pursue future opportunities with the City of Albuquerque’s Open Space Division and Office of Diversity and Inclusion.
Stories about:
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
That must have been a total bummer for the Ranger, and the visitors. Totally avoidable. I'm really sorry Park Rangers gave to deal with visitors that think they're so special and that the rules don't apply to them. It would have been so easy to just get back on the path - as the Ranger said, no big deal, just a routine contact.
Typical power trip. Way over use of force. Give an inexperienced ranger a gun and taser and this is the outcome you get. I like how the ranger motions for other people to get off trail. Correct me if I'm wrong This whole incedent happened because someone was off the trail ? Wow
Seems that the one on a power trip was the visitor who refused to comply with reasonable requests of the park ranger. You know, we have to have some sembalance of law and order so that we can live in a civilized environment. The key here is reasonableness. The park visitor didn't comply with reasonable requests made. He and his partner were violating park rules, they lied, they walked away when while being questioned. I've been down on law enforcement for some time given racial animosity many in LE have shown, but this? Nope. Visitor was wrong. Full stop.
Sounds like nazi interrogation in a country where you're supposed to have liberties and rights.. they didn't do anything wrong, and shouldn't have had to expose their personal identities.. I mean, their putting a highway through the monuments for goodness sake.. people with a badge and gun abuse their supposed powers, infringing on civil liberties!
The ranger should be flipping burgers!
You're wrong. This whole incident happened because someone failed to listen to a federal officer who begged and pleaded with him to obey the law. Lots of people go off trail and go back on when asked. This guy chose to ignore the law, and ignore law enforcement. Bad choice.
So Nomad, you think there should be no rules in a National Park? You think there should be no areas that are off limits? I am for liberties and rights far more than the average Joe but to say we can't do anything to protect our park assets is a little much.
so ecbuck, did this man DESERVE to be tased? was this man breaking a rule? yes. at the end of the day was he hurting or harming anything? no. who in the government has the right to tell me where i can and cant go on public property? Uncle sam needs to take a step back.... how can it be illegal to be a natural human in a country that calls itself "the freest country in the world"? the US is a joke, its no different than china or russia at all... it makes me sick
Yeah, I agree! If there are no rules in our national parks and no areas that are off limits, then, before we know it, we'll be dealing with armed insurrection at our national capitol.
Good gosh, without respect for the laws, we'd be dealing with mean and stupid, gullible, lunatic fringe wingnuts all stirred up and goaded on by carefully planned misinformation, disinformation, and just flat propaganda planted in social media by hostile foreign intelligence operations. They'd be hollering childish gibberish about government seizure of assets instead of just paying their fair share of taxes; they'd be ignorantly repeating already debunked hostile foreign intelligence talking points about fiat currencies that those operations spread in their efforts to supplant the US Dollar as the global reserve currency; and, eventually, we'd even be dealing with disloyal bowling alley militias trying to violently overthrow the duly elected government of the United States.
Yes indeed, I am for liberties and rights; but, to say we can't do anything to protect our park assets is a little much!
USAF Veteran 6 years LE, retired Sheriff Lt. 32.7 years NM, its real simple do what the officer ask you to do, enough of this racial profiling BS. I have seen many sites protected by the NPS torn up and lost of the years, in most cases they work by themselves and are far a few in the vast areas they try and protect. I do not see any news on the out come of the case by the left wing media who0 only wants to make officers look bad but NOTHING when they are cleared!
Yes, the man deserved to be tased. Yes, this man was breaking a rule. Yes, he was hurting or harming the land. The Constitution gives the government the right to tell you what to do on Federal Government owned property. There are many places where Uncle Sam needs to step back where it doesn't have Constitutional authority to tread. This isn't one of them. I suggest that if you really believe the US is no better than China or Russia that you should move to China or Russia and discover how ignorant a statement that is. Though, we are moving in that direction in many respects.
Sure. I originally thought that maybe this wasn't appropriate (like one ranger who Tased a dog walker at GGNRA), but there were additional reports of his oddball behavior. That ranger at GGNRA lost a lawsuit and I heard was reassigned, but this guy was being ridiculous.
Of course I wish that federal law enforcement could have used a few more Tasers at a certain event on January 6 on federal government properly. I personally thought that they were too easy on people who were actively assaulting the police. Tasers would have been appropriate, although they did deploy batons, chemical irritants, and one instance of firearm.
y_p_W - Yes tasers would have been appropriate on Jan 6 if the police actually wanted to stop the protesters.
"Of course I wish that federal law enforcement could have used a few more Tasers at a certain event on January 6"
And also at the hundreds of riots that took place prior to the ONE on Jan 6th where businesses were destroyed and looted, private citizens attacked and murdered, government buildings burned and police attacked and murdered.
Do you have an example of where there wasn't an appropriate police response given the situation? I saw video of plenty of these where police deployed riots equipment including chemical irritants, batons, etc. What I saw happening at the Capitol Building on January 6 was literally police being under extreme duress where one officer lost an eye and there where several who suffered major injuries as a result of being beaten with poles and other objects such as helmets. And one being crushed by a door. There was nothing like it the previous year. The only thing I saw that even came close to that kind of incursion into a government building was when that member of the Oregon House let people into their (closed to the public) capitol building, and where police were attacked trying to eject them and even where the police were attacked with pepper spray.
I don't agree with people who use violence to achieve their political goals, whether it's people throwing objects at police or the Proud Boys randomly firing paintball guns at people on the street. They should all be charged appropriately and dealt with appropriately. But sure - I guess if you agree with their goals, it's easy enough to discount the January 6 incursion as just another riot. I think the police in DC showed a lot more restraint than I believed than was appropriate given the level of violence.
That doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with all use of force by police. The National Park Service still needs to answer for what happened in and around Lafayette Park on the day they cleared it. I still haven't heard of any final resolution as to why US Park Police officers attacked a reporter and her camera operator who were clearly press.
That answer has already been provided.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/police-did-not-clear-protesters-...
I was not referring to who ordered it or the reasons why, but about the level of force used against people who may not have heard there was an order and certainly where the civilians met with force weren't engaging in any violence. Did anyone see the Australian camera operator who got a shield to his gut, Captain America style? Followed by the reporter getting cold-cocked in the head with a closed fist.
Yeah nothing. Just 2000 police officers injured in a few weeks.
"More than 2,000 law enforcement officers were injured in the first weeks of protests over the summer following the police killing of George Floyd, according to a report released in October."
https://www.wdrb.com/news/national/police-chief-association-releases-num...
Truly unfortunate, although I don't understand why you needed to go to a Louisville news source simply to get a direct quote from Fox News.
And how many black men, women, and children did you find killed by law enforcement in the same period of time?
This is a horrific time to be a cop of any sort, and an equally horrific time to be a citizen of color. We are all, regardless of our demographic, just happy and lucky to get home safely every evening.
Rick - The chances that a person of color will be killed by a policemen approach those of being hit by lightening. There were 229 blacks in total killed by police in 2020 - with few exceptions, justifiably. There were 8,000 blacks killed in Chicago alone, mostly by civilian blacks. It may be dangerous for people of color to be walking the streets but the threat isn't the police. And the 2,000 injured cops isn't a Fox News statistic, it comes from report issued by the Major Cities Chiefs Association. It's just that Fox has the onions to report it.
I'm afraid you have an incredibly long way to go to be tolerated saying "with few exceptions, justifiably".
Rick - Out of 229 deaths last year, how many ended up with a finding of misconduct by the police?
Once again Y_P_W, the accusation of clearing protesters for a photo-op has been proven false.
Not really. It was a lot more complicated than just the clearing of Lafayette Park, which was determined to be for a planned installation of a perimeter fence. That being said, the USPP officer in charge of the clearing operations was apparently not too happy when he heard that Trump was planning on walking through, since he didn't want to give the appearance that they were clearing the park just for Trump to walk through unimpeded. And Trump was apprised of what was happening at the very least so he would know if he could walk through unimpeded.
The report certainly didn't excuse the excessive use of force by USPP. Also - the area around St. John's Episcopal Church was cleared for Trump, but not by USPP. It seemed to be a combination of different law enforcement that cleared out the church's private property so that Trump could trespass on it. I mean - I thought that you would normally agree that private property owners have the right to allow or deny entry save something like an arrest warrant or an imminent safety risk. The Episcopal Diocese of Washington has been adamant that they gave permission for certain people (including the Pastor who was in charge of the site) to be there, and never gave Trump or the people with him permission to use the church grounds for the photo op.
Yes really. The report is unequivocable in its conclusion that the park was not cleared for the purpose of a photo opportunity. If the Diocese had a problem with Trump being on the property they have full recourse through the courts. I haven't seen any suit filed.
I wasn't referring to the park being cleared. I believe that USPP cleared it because they had already planned to install the fence. But then again I also believe the quote that expressed displeasure that it might be perceived as being cleared to allow Trump through.
As far as suing the federal government goes, it's not really all that easy unless someone has died. I have yet to hear anything that justifies the use of force against people who were legally on church property. Only a lawsuit could prove that it was unjustified? It was kind of hard to stay there after getting gassed . But if somehow the Pastor could have stayed there and was adamant that the group of US government officials (including Trump) were not allowed to be on church property (which they've hinted) would you agree that Trump trespassed? Or at least admit that he wasn't welcome? Exactly what do you think justified police ejecting people from church property so that Trump could get his photo op? I understand that police could legally expel people from Lafayette Park due to a planned clearance, although it doesn't sound as if most people heard an announcement, including those who got hit by USPP. But on church property is a whole new thing, and I don't think you would support such a violation of private property rights unless it was in the service of Trump.
Ok, this conversation has really strayed from the specific story. We're closing it to new comments.