Meet The Karazans: 2014

Thursday, November 27, 2014

The Day We Went To Grandma's

THE DAY WE WENT TO GRANDMA'S
(Samuel D. Sayad)

The day we went to Grandma's,
Oh what a fuss she made,
Wipe those feet and dry your paws,
That carpet's just been laid.
She put us in the garden,
So we had a sniff around,
We pulled up all her flowers,
'Til there were no more in the ground.

Well Grandma just started shrieking,
She really got quite mad,
So we gave her some of the flowers,
To make her feel less sad.

Later on that evening,
All warm and in our beds,
Our tummies started rumbling,
It's time that we were fed.

We went into the living room,
But they were watching telly,
'Come on nan, I barked out loud.
'It's time to fill our bellies.'

We went into the kitchen,
To see what we could find,
'Oh wow' I whined, 'a loaf of bread'
I'm sure that they won't mind.

Look left, look right,
the coast was clear,
We love the smell of bread,
We grabbed it quick and hurried out to eat it in our beds.

Now for a drink to wash it down,
But the bowl's outside the door.
We go back to the living room,
and pace up and down the floor.

Well Grandad got the message
And let us out the back.
We shot straight past the drinking bowl,
And headed down the track.

There was something in the garden
That a Newfie just can't resist,
An ornamental pond of course,
With lots of pretty fish.

After clearing out the pond for nan,
We went back to the door,
pushed it open, went inside.
Dripping pond onto the floor.

Nan she started yelling,
Grandad, well he just laughed,
She said that we were stinking
And had to have a bath.

Cleaned and dried and let back in,
We tried to sit with nan.
'Get off me lap you silly dog,
You're bigger than I am!!'

We got back down and left the room
and went back to our beds,
Two pairs of shoes and a slipper later,
Time to get those zzzzzzzzzzzz,s.

Breakfast at Grandma's is great,
As we get tea and toast,
But after we were still not full
So we ate the Sunday roast!

We couldn't understand them,
But we knew that we'd been bad.
'F's' and 'B's' were mentioned
Time to look real sad.

We looked at them with our big brown eyes,
Our heads held down quite low,
It did the trick - it always does
We're still their little beaus.

We didn't stay as long as planned,
As Dad he got quite stressed,
Having chased us out of the pond again,
he thought it for the best.

We kid you not, it's how it was.
We're telling you the truth.
The day we went ot Grandma's
She got well and truly NEWF'D!!!

Oh Gran we know you're sleeping,
You've really earned your rest.
Please know we're always thinking
That you and Grandpa are the best."

Friday, October 10, 2014

GGNRA Ranger Found Liable For Tasing Dog Owner

Thursday, October 09, 2014
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) - A federal judge Thursday found that a park ranger unlawfully Tasered a jogger during an altercation that started when she stopped the man for violating a leash law, and escalated into a shouting match that ended with Gary Hesterberg writhing on the ground in handcuffs.
"The court finds that the intrusion on Hesterberg's Fourth Amendment interest to be free from being Tased greatly outweighs the minimal governmental interest in apprehending him for his violations of the law," U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley wrote. "The court finds that this case involves an almost imperceptibly low government interest in apprehending Hesterberg."
Hesterberg had been running with his two dogs, Jack and Jo-Jo, one of them off-leash, in Rancho Corral de Tierra, a park near his home in Montara, that had just been transferred to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area.
During this transitional period, park rangers were issuing warnings to dog-walkers about a new leash law. Hesterberg leashed his dog when he saw Ranger Sarah Cavallaro, who approached him and said she would not cite him for violating the law, but would let him off with a warning.
Hesterberg said Cavallaro never identified herself, and he had no idea that she was a law enforcement officer with authority to arrest him.
Cavallaro asked for his name, address and date of birth. Hesterberg told her his name was Gary Jones, which did not check out with dispatch.
Cavallaro told Hesterberg he was not free to leave, though he tried to walk away three times.
Cavallaro grabbed Hesterberg's arm the second time he turned to go and then pulled her Taser on him. She held him at Taserpoint for 4 minutes while she called for backup.
Hesterberg asked her not to use the Taser because he had a heart condition. He asked her what gave her the authority to hold him, and she allegedly replied, "the Constitution."
Hesterberg said he told her, "That's no kind of answer. Come on, dogs, we're leaving." He turned away for the third time and she Tasered him in the back.
Judge Corley, who heard testimony for four days in August, said the severity of Hesterberg's crime was so small, and his behavior so nonthreatening, that Cavallaro was not justified in using the Taser.
Corley agreed with the government that Hesterberg did resist arrest by pulling away from Cavallaro, but "it still did not rise to the level of an individual who is physically assaulting the officer," the judge said. "The lack of any violent conduct on the part of Hesterberg is crucial."
Corley added: "The offenses are particularly inconsequential in the context of this case, given that Cavallaro's duty at the Rancho was to engage leash-law violators in an 'educational contact' that would inform the violator of the transfer of ownership to GGNRA. Cavallaro's mission was to merely warn off-leash dog-walkers that GGNRA's dog leash laws would be enforced against them in the future. In other words, Cavallaro and her superiors viewed leash-law violations on January 29, 2012 as not meriting even a citation. In light of that previous position, the court fails to see how the government can now plausibly claim its interest in pursuing such violations was so high as to necessitate Hesterberg's capture with near-maximum nondeadly force. Further, Hesterberg was nonviolent and posed no threat to Cavallaro or anyone else; thus, the government had no interest in capturing him because of a danger he posed."
Corley's ruling reflects her demeanor throughout the trial, in which she repeatedly asked government lawyers why Cavallaro simply didn't let the man go, and why detaining Hesterberg was so important that Cavallaro had to Tase him.
In her ruling, Corley called the constitutionality of government's invoking the warrants-check rule to ensure public safety "questionable."
"The government concedes that Cavallaro had no reasonable suspicion that Hesterberg had any outstanding warrants. Thus, given the questionable constitutionality of continuing to detain Hesterberg for the sole purpose of running a warrants check, the court is not persuaded that the need to run a warrants check elevates the government's interest in preventing Hesterberg's escape such that Cavallaro's use of force was reasonable," Corley wrote.
She also called into question the testimony Hunter Bailey, the National Park Service deputy chief of law enforcement, who testified for the government.
During trial, Corley seemed surprised when Bailey said he was not aware of 9th Circuit standards on excessive force, and even more surprised when he said that Cavallaro would have been justified in Tasing a 9-year-old girl in Hesterberg's situation, so long as Cavallaro "evaluated other options" first.
"The court cannot imagine a rational fact-finder that would find it reasonable to Tase a nonviolent and nonthreatening 9-year-old or 8-month-pregnant woman fleeing from nonserious misdemeanors," Corley wrote. "The court accordingly gives no weight to Bailey's opinions regarding the reasonableness of Cavallaro's use of force."
Corley ruled in Hesterberg's favor on his battery and negligence claims and awarded him $50,000 in damages, saying he deserved compensation for his mental and emotional distress, but "that distress is likely tempered by Hesterberg's acknowledgment of his own role leading to the Tasing; namely, lying to Cavallaro and never correcting his lie." rberg's arm the second time he turned to go and then pulled her Taser on him. She held him at Taserpoint for 4 minutes while she called for backup.
Hesterberg asked her not to use the Taser because he had a heart condition. He asked her what gave her the authority to hold him, and she allegedly replied, "the Constitution."
Hesterberg said he told her, "That's no kind of answer. Come on, dogs, we're leaving." He turned away for the third time and she Tasered him in the back.
Judge Corley, who heard testimony for four days in August, said the severity of Hesterberg's crime was so small, and his behavior so nonthreatening, that Cavallaro was not justified in using the Taser.
Corley agreed with the government that Hesterberg did resist arrest by pulling away from Cavallaro, but "it still did not rise to the level of an individual who is physically assaulting the officer," the judge said. "The lack of any violent conduct on the part of Hesterberg is crucial."
Corley added: "The offenses are particularly inconsequential in the context of this case, given that Cavallaro's duty at the Rancho was to engage leash-law violators in an 'educational contact' that would inform the violator of the transfer of ownership to GGNRA. Cavallaro's mission was to merely warn off-leash dog-walkers that GGNRA's dog leash laws would be enforced against them in the future. In other words, Cavallaro and her superiors viewed leash-law violations on January 29, 2012 as not meriting even a citation. In light of that previous position, the court fails to see how the government can now plausibly claim its interest in pursuing such violations was so high as to necessitate Hesterberg's capture with near-maximum nondeadly force. Further, Hesterberg was nonviolent and posed no threat to Cavallaro or anyone else; thus, the government had no interest in capturing him because of a danger he posed."
Corley's ruling reflects her demeanor throughout the trial, in which she repeatedly asked government lawyers why Cavallaro simply didn't let the man go, and why detaining Hesterberg was so important that Cavallaro had to Tase him.
In her ruling, Corley called the constitutionality of government's invoking the warrants-check rule to ensure public safety "questionable."
"The government concedes that Cavallaro had no reasonable suspicion that Hesterberg had any outstanding warrants. Thus, given the questionable constitutionality of continuing to detain Hesterberg for the sole purpose of running a warrants check, the court is not persuaded that the need to run a warrants check elevates the government's interest in preventing Hesterberg's escape such that Cavallaro's use of force was reasonable," Corley wrote.
She also called into question the testimony Hunter Bailey, the National Park Service deputy chief of law enforcement, who testified for the government.
During trial, Corley seemed surprised when Bailey said he was not aware of 9th Circuit standards on excessive force, and even more surprised when he said that Cavallaro would have been justified in Tasing a 9-year-old girl in Hesterberg's situation, so long as Cavallaro "evaluated other options" first.
"The court cannot imagine a rational fact-finder that would find it reasonable to Tase a nonviolent and nonthreatening 9-year-old or 8-month-pregnant woman fleeing from nonserious misdemeanors," Corley wrote. "The court accordingly gives no weight to Bailey's opinions regarding the reasonableness of Cavallaro's use of force."
Corley ruled in Hesterberg's favor on his battery and negligence claims and awarded him $50,000 in damages, saying he deserved compensation for his mental and emotional distress, but "that distress is likely tempered by Hesterberg's acknowledgment of his own role leading to the Tasing; namely, lying to Cavallaro and never correcting his lie."