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.
Comments
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".
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.
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.