Pearl=w, that is an interesting analysis. If any of it were actually true as to the facts on the day in question it would be even better. But since all we can rely on for now is the self serving comments of a professional obfuscator billing by the hour, I suppose we will have to see what comes out in court.

Occams razor. What is the simpler explanation? That this whole thing was cooked up by LEOs who had nothing else better to do, even though after three years 99% of river contacts have ended with "have a nice day."? Or that our downtrodden Yukon pioneer went off the deep end and is now going to be held accountable for behavior more appropriate for a three year old? My money is on the latter.

I'll chip in my specific .02 to the discussion: I am aquainted with the accused. For sure, he has no love for the NPS, or for most of the Dept of the Interior. He is known to express his opinion, often quite causticly, and that can sting the worse because he is often quite accurate/justified in his opinions and observations.

Beyond doubt: he knows the river, and river-boating, well enough that he would not attempt ramming another boat in mid-stream. Someone with that degree of knowledge would have to be a very desperate criminal indeed, in great fear of grave consequences, to contemplate such action, and that does not fit this individual at all, in any way.

Now, I can see how the LEOs involved may have *preceived* that [ramming] to be his intent, as he swung his boat over to make for shore, depending on where they had positioned their craft, and depending upon their own [lack of?] knowledge and experience navigating the Yukon, and the capabilities and condition of his craft. [And I could cite any number of instances where other LEOs have killed, due to their mis-preceptions and mis-conceptions - so thank goodness that these LEOs had the restraint not to use their shotgun!!].

But I can also see how the request/attempt to board a [most probably] heavily ladened riverboat in mid-stream would have reasonably been considered at threat to the boat and boatman, and to the lives of all involved.

Further, manuevering a ladened craft out of the current and over, while looking for a safe place to pull out, especially if leeway is more or less constricted by another craft edging close, trying to block you and/or board, can be quite hairy on a river like the Yukon. I can well imagine what the man might have had to say [and I might well have said similar things in such a situation, especially if I'd had passengers at risk, even though I generally tend to be more tactful]. I'm quite sure that the shotgun did not help his preception of the risk to himself and his passengers. And I can see how he might not have stopped to considered the LEOs' viewpoint, amid the other urgent concerns of keeping himself and his passengers alive and above water. In short, I can understand how he might have been quite irate, by the time he achieved dry land.

Based in the quite, quite, limited information presently available, it **would appear** that the NPS Rangers [the trained professionals in the situation], did not stop at any point to consider the boatman's perspective, either.

And I'll say again, no matter HOW caustic, rude, disrespectful, or offensive, the man's remarks may have been, it would not justify retaliate by professional LE personnel. Whether his boat was registered or not, whether the Rangers' had 'suspicions' or not, the man did pull out. It is very difficult to see how any "roughing up" **IF** such occurred, could have been justified [though I can see how it might have been advisable to not push, go slow, and give him a few moments to vent and cool off before proceeding, if HIS perceptions are to be considered as equally significant to the situation, as the LEOs']. Nor can I see any reason for stranding his passengers, no matter what the crcumstances.

Prodigal son's remarks about LEOs and LEAs in general are, unfortunately, quite on the mark, and I'd have to say that they match my personal experiences and observations.

One of the most massives dis-services LEAs and most LEOs have done themselves is to 'circle their wagons' to defend any/all members of their fraternity from 'outsider' [read: public/citizen] complaints. This behavior has led even quite decent LEOs at times to defend actions of an extremely abusive and unjustified nature, and has massively contributed to the negative preception of LEOs as a group, and the public distrust of LEOs and LEAs.

It is entirely possible [I have seen it more than once myself], that an entirely [otherwise] decent LEO remains silent [and complicent] while another LEO grossly abuses his authority, or behaves in an entirely inexcusable manner.

What I believe, oldowl, are many things. And I try to base my beliefs in facts, rather than conventional assumptions, as many persons in our culture are apt to do. Not that I always succeed at that, but I try, none the less..

Which leads to belief number 1; Carl Jung, in his own way, told us that as human beings, we are -all- capable of inaccurate perception, personal beliefs clouding our vision, malice, great deeds of kindness, dishonesty, and both the most wonderful and heinous actions anyone can imagine.

2.) Law enforcement has been gifted with a 'benefit of the doubt' existence, wherein they are often insulated from consequences for even malicious actions, as opposed to mere accidents. (*We should all be treated so specially... with concpets such as equal protection under the law' and all..)

3.) Many folks in law enforcement are there for the wrong reasons, but are permitted to stay due to a number of factors, including the presence of similar contamination in the ranks at higher levels/administration..

4.) The officers involved in this case are human beings and capable of the same sorts of unprofessional conduct that any other human being is, given the 'perfect storm' of events, mood, perceptions, setting, etc.

5.) Few experienced boaters would willingly aim a power-boat at another vessel, intending to ram it, without holding clear knowledge as to the probable injury to their own possessions and persons. Hatred is one thing, while suicide and voluntary loss of personal investment is totally another, presuming that Mr. Wilde possesses such hatred for NPS folks at all.

No, all the facts are not in yet. But contrary to another often-accepted assumption, the courts are not necessarily the bastion of truth and justice they're commonly accepted as being. They are a place where one well-paid artist of the sculpting of truth and untruth faces off with another artist of similar skills.

The result, as often as not, has little to do with actual truth, and more to do with who had the most resources, the most gifted attorney, the degree of manipulation and bias at play within the jury, etc.

Yes, the LEAs we have are the only ones we have. None the less, I personally (typically) choose not to use them at all, not withstanding several exceptions; someone else's goose is in the proverbial grinder and they need/request the services of such entities, my family member's late in arriving home, and I need to find out if there've been any serious accidents (more a source for an in-depth traffic report in that regard), or the law mandates that I call them and there's no other way out of it than to do so (such as when I have hit a moose in the past, and was, btw, insulted by the behavior of the wet-behind-the-ears AST who arriveed in the wee hours of the morning that day, to 'assist' the person who'd -called- him!!)

In re. to reporting inappropriate or inadequate performance by LEOs, I'll offer up yet another anecdote. Another friend in the area was peeved at inaction involving a case wherein they'd been victimized, and there was more than AMPLE evidence of the crimes and the identity of the perpetrator. My friend pressed and pressed the local AST to take appropriate action, including going to at least one supervisor.

Some time later my friend received a tip from a professional in another part of the State who was involved in the case. The caller was also a former AST. The caller asked what types of vehicles my friend owned. They told them, and the caller informed her that there was talk among some of the AST who'd been made less than comfortable by the victim's prodding that they might pull their vehicles over and perform what amounted to shake-down or intimidation searches.

Whether there was any intention to plant anything on the or their family members or not was not known at the time the warning call was received.. What -is- known is that the victim was instructed as to how to behave when and if this occurred, that there were folks at AST who were on the right track and would make an effort to deal with such rogue bs internally, and that any such stops should be logged or noted by the victim, including as much specificity as possible, including badge numbers, names of officers, conduct, specific requests, etc..

That one's in addition to the cases I've loosely elaborated on earlier.

Whether they're the only folks available in that line of service or not, I don't call them as a rule. They often don't believe I should have the breadth of rights I -do- possess, let alone the rights I believe strongly I -should- have. Thus I tend to view them as more of a threat or burr in the saddle than any source of help. I keep my distance from them in nearly all cases.

Re. licensed or unlicensed vehicles in the bush; I know folks who live remote. Not in a village, but independently in a remote bush location. Do you think they make a trip to town to license snowmachines or four-wheelers, etc., when it's time to gear up?

The fact is that we pass laws in an urban setting with little to no regard for persons who live in circumstances that don't even come close to matching the conditions in which we pass those laws from. Then, when someone in those non-conventional settings fails to meet the same standard as those of us with central heating, power from the grid, and access to 7-11s with our Cadillacs and Toyotas, we have the audacity to accuse them of being tantamount to criominals.

And no, I don't believe a lack of a boat registration, if that's what the 'buy-in' was for the NPS in this affair, is grounds for gun play or physical assault.... Anymore than a jay-walker should be maced and tased.

70 year old senior citizens are as capable of criminal acts as younger ones. Age does not determine a person's honesty. No reason why a 70 year old would not do this if so inclined.

There are good cops and bad cops obviously. If more complaints were made about the bad ones things might change for the better. If one bad one got many complaints maybe he would change and others be less likely to act this way.

Obviously you are inclined to believe this LEO was wrong from the start. And I having worked with NPS LEOs have NEVER seen this type of behavior or attitude. I have seen it with troopers. From what I read of this story it is obvious there is more to it, that it has been sensationalized by others, that the facts will come out in court. Then if the LEO was out of line we will know and NPS will discipline him. But I am inclined to believe there was a reason for Mr. Wilde's charges and he was no total innocent here. We already know he had an unregistered boat so he is not a law abiding person. Yes, I have seen and talked to some troopers who have talked and acted inappropriately and unethically. But I have to hope the next one I meet will be different and I would treat him with an open mind. Of course maybe not total trust and some apprehension. But they are the only law enforcement we have.

oldowl, no place did I say I hate all LEOs or that they are all inherently corrupt. I specifically addressed cops who engage in bullying, and those otherwise 'decent officers' who protect them.

I -did- (also) say that modern policing has brought a heavy-handedness that's accepted as the norm today by much of the overly-dependent, scared-of-their-own-shadows mainstream, middle-class public, who often lack any real insight into such things, and are still prone believing in an imaginary Andy of Mayberry police force; a construct or fantasy that left the proverbial stage many years ago..

I knew an AST who taught at the academy in Sitka, was a member of the State-wide major crimes task force, etc., and I could share with you some of the things I heard this gentleman say and things he did that would raise eyebrows. And he was an instructor and a decorated officer; a mentor and leader in that community.

I watched him practice bayonet butt-stroking of an imaginary perpetrator in his living room one day, using an M-1 Garrand with a bayonet fixed.

I watched as he practiced the close-quarters shooting tactics taught at the academy, stating they were to be learned to a reflexive point; one to the head two to the chest..

I listened as he told me he could find a legal reason to pull over any vehicle he wanted to.

I told him that his peers and his setting of precedent by pushing the constitutional envelope, and the pro-police bias within the courts, the administration of LEAs and the legislature, had essentially made the 4th amendment (and other portions of the Bill of Rights) moot.

There had been an evolutionary shift in policing in this country (and perhaps even western culture in large part) that has occurred over time, and its result has not been to bring the observant citizen closer to those who claim to 'serve' them.

I already pointed out that I've had friends in that line of work. And 'friends' is not a word I use loosely as a rule. I know how to spell 'acquaintance,' and my friends can be counted on both hands, and leave enough fingers to hold a cup of coffee and a smoke.

And again, while there are some decent, less-than-rude, and even sometimes helpful police in modern policing, MANY of them circle the proverbial wagons when one of their own are accused, often protecting bad cops out of a sense of loyalty and duty. An inability to separate the person from the badge leads to a lot of latitude given to cops that simply isn't always deserved.

I don't know what the fellow with the boat did, but I HIGHLY doubt that a 70-yr.-old man pointed a powered-up riverboat at an official craft with malice. Any person with sufficient time on the water knows what happens when boats collide at even moderately high speed. No where did I read anything about the three senior citizens being suicidal.

I -can- assure you that if someone places a shotgun unnecessarily to the head of a loved one or myself, without cause, it might take me a while to maneuver into that moment of giving them a proper wake-up, but I might well eventually end up placing the barrel of said weapon uncomfortably close to their sphincter.

It has been more than a few years since Yukon Charley Rivers was established. Yes, an older man who has been there many years and involved in mining in that area probably has a prejudice against NPS. However that prejudice should not extend to every worker in the system, whether there or elsewhere. Just as a prejudice against LEOS should not be a prejudice against each and every one. I have had both good and bad experiences with them but I have an open mind regarding dealing with them. I believe in being respectful but if they treat me disrespectfully or badly I am not afraid to make a complaint and have done so. But the next one I meet will still be treated respectfully unless I am treated otherwise.

As far as NPS goes, I have worked with some NPS LEOS who are great people, do not have the attitudes you describe, and I have not personally seen them behave other than professionally. Which is not to say there may be a bad one somewhere. But that one will be dealt with by his superiors.

IF this man made disrespectful comments to the LEOS, refused to obey orders, and attempted to ram their boat he was out of line. Anyone attempting to ram my boat (if I had one) might tempt me to get out a shotgun too. It does not matter if he is a "respected member of the Eagle community." And if they wanted to board his boat and the registration was clearly visible without doing so then there is something else to this story that we have not been told. Perhaps he was under suspicion for another reason? Why don't we find out before saying all law officers are heavy handed and gestapo, etc.?

For anyone feeling the policing is "heavy handed" why not do something about that rather than hating every law officer you see and blaming them for something before knowing the facts? I have met a few jerks for law officers and some others who are very nice people and don't abuse their authority. Which is not to say I am condoning the status quo, police brutality or anything of the sort. We have to have them in our society so why not appreciate the good and do something about the bad ones?!

oldowl, your veiled assertion of an active personality disorder as the source for contention, launched in a generic fashion, is the tired and old mainstay of many who accept conventional applications of authority and the misuses within it. They perpetuate the status quo while claiming to oppose it. Worse than those who actively defend it, for the insideous nature of their acceptanc eof the beast that some authorities sometimes represent.

Only in that normalcy may be defined as being within plus or minus five percent to the norm can a dissent with mainstream convention in all it's delusion be inherently regarded (and summarily dismissed) as abnormalcy.

The fact is that some of us believe in limited (polite) government, and DEMAND the right to live, be left alone in those affairs that merely affect ourselves, and require that our government weigh logical and objective factors in prioritizing its reposnses to circumstance, rather than being escalated by those who are theoretically sent to quell unrest.

Some of us have held both professional and voluntary positions that revealed the nature of the systemic tolerances for misuse of authority and those who perpetuate its existence by virtue of their worship of it. Some of us are familiar with the number of L.E. shooting incidents commonly white-washed by the DoJ's nodding and winking investigators and their local L.E. administration counterparts.

Anything for God and Country, right??

To pretend there's no pro-police bias in this culture is to act blindly and treat others guaranteed rights with disrespect..

Some of us have spent decades making ourselves aware of those cases that involve misuse of authority.

While some of this misguided policing belongs in the laps of the legislators, so does it lie in the laps of those who see themselves as being above the law as officers, and (often) possess an ego-born malady of feeliNg like they're so much better than anyone knows, by virtue of their service, and certain they're unappreciated, who are then bitter toward those they swear to serve; their indirect employers, the public. An inherent set-up for abuses for some LEOs

Look at statistics involving corruption oriented toward graft and greed (theft, shakedowns, robbery by LEOs), then research cases involving official perjury; a commonl;y unprosecuted felony, both in court cases and warrant afidavits.

Not a sociopathic disorder at all, as I indicated that the consequences should fly only when convicted, but mine is also a perspective born out of learning not to kneel so well, and possessing some of the history behind these thing abuses.

I've served on boards of directors dealing specifically with issues of civil rights and I'ev worked in professional positions that had me routinely interacting with authorities in a variety of ciircumstances.

The acceptance of heavy-handed policing in this country is way out of line, and while it may be acceptable for others to forfeit their own right to be free, it's quite another thing for them to agree to forfeit their neighbors'. That's regarded, in my opinion, as being an accessory to theft.

It may or may not have been the case in this circumstance, but the facts, given what's accepted as 'modern policing' thse days, look pretty suspicious at this point. To say otherwise is to give a pass where one's not due.

Oldowl, I must disagree with you. I have known Jim Wilde, Honey and Fred Shank for more than a quarter of a century, and trust me, they are "salt of the earth" good people. They do not suffer fools lightly, but they are fantastic people and even better Alaskans. The Park Service had no business boarding, or even wanting to board their boat. This will all come out in the trial and the following lawsuit that I hope Jim will persue. Maybe they can get this horrible behavior by the Park Service stopped. It has only been a few years since the terrible relationship with the NPS and the residents of Eagle, and this will definately set those relations back 25 yrs. By the way, Jim is also known and well respected in Eagle as well. The NPS blew this one bad, real bad.

I am sure there is more to this story and doubt that Mr. Wilde behaved like a model citizen. Refusing to obey orders and attempting to ram someone's boat is no way to behave. There is more to this than the NM has reported. I would be EXTREMELY surprised to find these rangers behaved inappropriately.

Some people have a hatred of authority no matter who or what they are, regardless of the person or what they do. Sometimes this is part of a sociopathic personality disorder.Or a totally unreasonable point of view that sees no side other than their own and has this anti-fed, anti-LEO under any circumstances mentality without seeing what the facts are.

While true, as far as recreational and some commercial boating regulations are concerned, these regulations have -what- to do with proposing a very unusual mid-river boarding of a small craft for an inspection that typically takes place verbally in most cases, or the training of a shotgun on one or more senior citizens?

Since when is an absence of a boat registration grounds for gun play, raised voices, hostile-sounding commands, potentially unsafe boarding practices, or the physical assault of a 70-year-old man??

Not in any community I was ever raised in or lived in...

As for me, I'd rather spit in the eye of a bully with a badge than lick his or her jack boots. And if more folks would refuse to be treated like cattle or subjects of the King du jour, perhaps these bozos would grow some of the manners that their parents obviously failed to teach them at home, before releasing them on the public to impress us with their authority and biceps.

From the AK DMV website...

"What Must Be Registered:

All powered boats (including non-powered boats with auxiliary power units) used on any water of the state. (This includes all rivers, streams, and lakes, regardless of size, and all salt water within 3 miles of land.)

A registration is valid for three years and will expire at the end of the month in which the boat is first registered. The Certificate of Number must be carried aboard the boat whenever it is in operation.

--------------------------------------------------

Exempt under State Law from Registration in Alaska:

A boat with a valid registration from another state or country that is not operated more than 90 consecutive days in Alaska.

A boat owned by the United States or an entity or political subdivision of the United States, or a boat owned by a state or an entity or political subdivision of a state.

NOTE:Under FEDERAL law, recreational - type public vessels of the United States must be state registered. [33 CFR Subpart B Sec. 172.11(b)]

Non-powered boats. (Effective 2/10/05: Sport Fishing Guides are required to register their non-powered boats.)

A documented boat. The documentation may be either from the U.S. or a foreign country.

--------------------------------------------------

Items Required to Register a Boat:

*Application

*Fees ($24.00 for powered boats, $10.00 for non-powered)

*Ownership document. Must be one of the following:

Manufacture Statement of Origin (MSO)

Carpenter's Certificate

Bill of sale from previous owner or dealer

Title or registration from a previous state

Affidavit of Ownership (Form 848)"

I dunno' oldowl... I figure two days in the stocks in a town square (if guilty, of course) beats the heck out of what the Bolsheviks might've done, or, for that matter, the fate that landed in Bruce's back-side.

Rotten veggies and some public humiliation aren't so bad in contrast to some of the very real historical alternatives.

The Park Service enforcement staff may indeed maintain a lesser percentage of rogue officers, but it's important (in my opinion) to remember that there are numerous/various roots to corruption within law enforcement that sometimes leads to abuses of others' rights.

There's greater room for corruption born of greed and graft among those who do more direct-line enforcement every day; especially the many thousands of narcotics squads, whether federal, state, or local. This is for obvious reasons.

Then there's the cynical officer's corruption and abuse that slowly ferments within some LEOs, tired of what seems an endless thankless job of re-arresting the same perpetrators over and over, with the officers in those sorts of circumstances feeling justified in some sort of vigilanteism. They tend to see a limited cross-section of humanity, and thus make some eroneous assumptions about the nature of human kind, much as clinicians might eventually succumb to after seeing one too many incest victims, etc., etc.

And there's the random ego-maniac, eyes wide with power and prestige, who likely historically saw little intrinsic value in their own worth as a person, aside from what ever status/job/rank they held. For them, the badge is a ticket to place themselves above others, pretend a sort of superiority or merit, and make demands of others from the posture of a (systemically-empowered) bully.

I've known some of each group over the years. Been friends with one who became cynical, who only wanted to be a cop long enough to make his way through law school, back in the mid-west well over 30 years ago. We met under uncomfortable circumstances which I won't elaborate on, but we were friends for a time when I was a teen, filled with vinegar. He was an informal surrogate Big Brother of sorts. I watched him lose his dreams, hope and spirit to the cynical day-to-day antics of the society that surrounded him.

Yes, for those persons unduly affected by officers who treat their badge as an authorization to shout orders, treat free individuals as indentured servants or the King's subjects, etc., there are avenues for filing grievances. I've known of such cases that were brought forward locally. The reporter of the off-duty AST's behavior in one specific case was patronized, with tongue-in-cheek compassion offered up by the officer he complained to at the local AST detachment on Peger Rd. That case occurred about 4 years ago..

The plaintiff in that case asked the shift officer at the detachment if there was a group photo of the local Troopers from which he could identify the Trooper in question. He was (I believe dishonestly) told there were no such photographs at the detachment. The officer accused of misbehavior in that case later showed up on his door-step at approximately 10:00 P.M. with a handful of traffic citations for him, which he refused to accept.

His attorney later made it quite clear to the AST shift supervisor that this 'officer' was not to approach the plaintiff or his family within 200 feet, and my understanding is that the supervisor assured the attorney and the plaintiff that this would not be a problem.

They (AST) seemed very concerned that the facts of the case not be made very public. They invest a lot of money and time in making their officers appear competent and full of integrity, and flinch a bit when there's a threat to that facade.

Such is the response of many otherwise decent officers when one of their own is under scrutiny for being a Grade-A jerk..

The Thin Blue Line isn't a whole lot different than the oath of silence among the various organized crime groups. However, unlike the various organized crime groups, the oath of silence is often much more strongly adhered to by many LEOs.

Naw, if guilty, I think two days in the stocks in a town square with incoming rotted veggies from passers-by would be just about right as a suitable punishment for bullying folks in the way the story describes. That, and perhaps a life-long career to follow that leaves them asking "Do you want fries with that?". Providing, of course, that there's video surveilance in the kitchen preventing them from adultering others' food... 'cause bullies almost always find a way to express their sense of inflated superiority and self-worth.

Have to say I agree with you for the most part. They should be held accountable to a higher standard and appropriately disciplined by the law for thier transgressions. However I believe that LEOs of this variety are in a minority in NPS and the punishment you described is way out of line. There are legal routes to take like a complaint to their superiors and the superiors above them. Few people want to do that but it is something we all have the freedom to do and if more people made complaints about an officer the less likely he and his fellows would behave the same. They are public servants.

You're correct about the concept of being innocent until proven guilty, OldOwl. Which is why I included the last paragraph of my diatriibe that portion/paragraph reading:

" If this incident occurred as it's reported, the 'officers' involved should be put in stocks in the town square, and have rotted veggies thrown at them for a day or two, then be barred from any future opportunity to -ever- again hold authority over -anyone-. Not even a pet. Period."

BUT... I also assert that public authority figures have a GREATER obligation to uphold the law and better steer their own conduct than the average citizen does. They are, after all, licensed to kill, enter homes, seize property, persons', and many other authorities that historically lead directly to abuses of less-empowered persons' rights.

It's a historically-proven 'homosapioen thing,' not so much a cultural thing. People ain't always pretty, and lots of persons having greater authoritiy than others have been even less pretty in the past.

I had a friend in Homer in the late 70s. A good guy. A regular quasi-hippied local sorta' feller'. decent sort. He was eventually a Park Ranger in Wrangell-St. Elias. My understanding (and it's an understanding that came from unknowlingly asking sensitive questions of persons who still suffered raw emotional and other psychic wounds who will never forget the events of a night in the early 80s), is that he had grown WAY proud of his authority in his position, taking the duties to a degree above what many might regard as reasonable.

He and his brother had both been involved in Park enforcement, and had, as a result, cultivated a certain degree of resentment in that particular community by virtue of a reportedly rigid approach to their duties..

To my understanding, he and his brother lay in wait outside of one such local's cabin one night, peppering the local fellow with birdshot from a shotgun blast when the gent arrived home. A big joke, and one that, no doubt, was contributed to by his heart-felt-(and then some) role as a "legally emopowered ranger."

The gent who was peppered didn't see the humor in the whole thing, and later that night found Bruce and his brother at the local watering hole, walking behind the bar, retrieving the revolver that was reportedly kept there. He approached Bruce from behind, emptying the gun into Bruce's back and kidneys, at which time Bruce's brother was stated to have exited the bar to their truck to retrieve a shotgun.

I spoke with the EMT/bartender, asking a question aloud in the bar over a decade after the fact, now about 20 years ago. I didn't initially realize the very senstitive nature of my questions, or that some of those present had been present that night.

Bruce was dead quickly. I don't recall what happened to his brother. And the rather well-liked local feller who emptied the revolver into Bruce's back-side forfeited a lengthy period of his freedom in this life in order to do a prison sentence that some/many locals there believed strongly was a direct product of incorrectly-administered 'justice.'

No, these men are indeed innocent until proven guilty, but I'm more than a bit aware of a pro-police bias existing where it comes to holding LEOs responsible for criminal actions of all sorts.

And even in those cases where the just convictions of criminally-oriented LEOs are sought and won, the time sentenced and served is often (not always, but often) substantially less than what an average Joe/Jane would typically receive.... Though it -ought- to be substantially greater.

prodigal_son, I would totally agree with you on that particular set of troopers, having lived in that area. However, I judge each of them as individuals as some of them have been nice and helpful. You cannot judge them ALL by a few. However the NPS law enforcement is a totally different organization. So you cannot judge them by what the state troopers, park rangers, etc. may do. I have worked with NPS and with their LEOs and never saw anything like this. I know one individual who now works with Yukon Charley and don't know if he was the individual involved in this case. I do not think he would do anything out of order. As I mentioned below, we do not know all the facts here - but we do know the man had an unregistered boat, he is accused of trying to run right at the rangers, and we don't know their past experience with him, what he may have been suspected of,etc. Yes, innocent till proven guilty but shouldn't that apply to the LEOs as well till the full story comes out? THey were in their jurisdiction of Yukon Charley Rivers National Park and Preserve doing what their jobs required them to do.

Despite the rather strange expressions of the overly-dependent, subjugated, submissinve hero-worshippers in our society, many LEOs seek such jobs out of an attraction to power and authority. I've worked with them, minimally associated with them, and witnessed their good-ol-boy banter, off the record, when discussing we 'civilians.'

I also took part in delivering MMPI scores to LE departments as part of the hiring process that involved psychological screening of prospective hires.

While society has willingly swallowed the assertion that "without them, who would you call," the fact is that numerous law enforcement agencies in this country have taken their cases to the Supreme Court of the United States, very effectively asserting that they have no legal obligation to keep the citizenry safe (*These cases typically followed relatively obvious acts of negligence on the parts of officers and departments, often involving domestic violence cases with existing no-contact orders.)

The original Bill of Rights was formulated on the concept or belief that government authority should be limited, and that the citizenry should possess the right, if not an obligation, to question authority at nearly -all- times.

While how those questions are to be posed is sometimes at issue, we seem to have entered one of those phases of nationalistic subservience and kow-towing wherein the hero-worshippers forbid -any- assertion of common sense where law enforcers are concerned.

I've seen it first-hand on the side of the Parks Hwy. when an off-the-job commercial trucker inquired with a Cantwell/Healy-based Trooper ~2 years ago re. a valid safety issue involving traffic that was stopped in both directions, and a blind curve being dangerously close to the end of one of the lines of stopped vehicles in a 65 mph zone.. The Trooper's response could be summarized as employing excess use of authority, demeaning statements, threats, etc.; a temper tantrum with a badge to back it up... or bullying in uniform.

Other descriptions of the LEO's behavior that day might involve hypotheses about the size of specific appendages the officer possessed.

I offered my name and address to the victim of that blatant official misconduct, should he have needed a witness in court to refute the unfounded citations that resulted..

Many of those in uniform should have never been given a badge -or- a gun. As long as society is told they must face east, bow, and kiss the badge and jack-boots, they will never know real freedom.

If this incident occurred as it's reported, the 'officers' involved should be put in stocks in the town square, and have rotted veggies thrown at them for a day or two, then be barred from any future opportunity to -ever- again hold authority over -anyone-. Not even a pet. Period.

This is nothing but a political tactic that rest on the side of Lisa hoping to gain native votes.

This leaves a foul taste in your mouth.......

Attack the national park employees due to Lisa not getting the land exchange from the national parks for SeaAlaska....

A cheap shot.

Sorry Pearl=W, I was replying to TeaPartyPatriot and I copy pasted the wrong ID post.

Peal=W I agree with you that large public access areas are very important, but I think Federal ownership is a bad situation

when the Feds hold such an incredible lion's share, it sets a bad precedence for the Fed powers, unless you are a pure socialist. The whole strength of our republic is the limiting power states rights have over the tendency of a Fed system to go black hole on us and become an ever-consuming power monster that we witness in so many other nations. Even if we can not obtain from them as much private land as is fair, at the right time, Tea time perhaps, this can be done if we keep putting a spotlight on the issue.

*Questioning* authority is not anarchy, and is not generally productive of anarchy. *Questioning* authority, like expressing one's opinion about the actions [and/or motivations] of those in authority, is one of the most essential citizen behaviors to ensure that those in authority do not 'slip the leash' and run out of control. It is the means by which we remain a free people, a continual check on the possible formation of authoritarian/totalitarian governments.

The authority of our government rests entirely upon the "consent of the governed", therefore it is imperative that the governed [the people] continue to question it's actions. It is a citizen's responsibility to do so, so that his/her 'consent' is informed and knowledgable, and remains voluntary - not just 'assumed' by those in power at any given time.