Woman arrested and handcuffed for walking dogs off the leash in a NYC park

NEW YORK CITY - NEWS AND COMMENT: Ms Marchand was walking her dogs off the lead in Riverside Park, situated in the Upper West Side of Manhattan. Under the law she was required to have her dogs on a lead. She was stopped by a couple of park officers who decided to arrest her, place in handcuffs and take to the local NYPD station where they placed her in a cell. She said: "This is not fascist Germany; we don't arrest people for like not having dogs on the leash."

Woman arrested and handcuffed the walking dogs off the leash in a NYC park. Screenshot from video made by a spectator.

She was fined $200 for non-compliance and $100 for walking the dogs off the leash. The police say that they had to take her to the police station because she could not produce identification and could not remember her address because she had recently moved to New York City.

A witness videoed the incident and said that it was "so unnecessary". Richard Baron Penman added: "It was disturbing how they treated her like a dangerous criminal pulling her around by the handcuffs."

He said that Ms Marchand had been cooperative and calm and he believed that the officers were acting aggressively and "went overboard trying to show their authority."

Ms Marchand is an IT professional. It was worse than that because apparently more officers showed up with cages and shock sticks to capture the dogs and put them in cages and take them to a pound. Fortunately, Ms Marchand was able to telephone her boyfriend on a borrowed cell phone who came around and collected the dogs.

Her shoes were removed and the "string from her pants" were taken by the police. I believe that this is the belt around her jogging pants. This is America and they use the word "pants" to mean trousers in the English language. Why did they remove the string? To protect her from self-harm?

Apparently, NYPD officers made fun of the park officers because they also believe that the park officers had overreacted. A park officers spokesperson said that Ms Marchand had been warned in the past. Ms Marchand said that she had not encountered police in the park before.

Comment: my gut feel is that this was an overreaction from an officious police officer who wanted to use his authority. As Ms Marchand said there are far more important things for the police to deal with. She should have been warned about her breach of the law. She should have been told that if she did it again, she would be charged and fined. There would be no need to arrest her under any circumstances. They could have found a way around the fact that she could not produce an ID and address. They could have phoned up her boyfriend for example and talk to him about it. He could have verified her identity and bona fides.

This is a bad look for the police at a time when they need to raise their profile and give the impression (at least) that they serve the community.

P.S. I know this is about dogs but what the heck! It is about companion animals and an important topic both in the US and the UK: the role of the police and whether they serve the community or believe thatt they are the masters.

Dogs Allowed in Outdoor Dining Areas in New York but Not Cats

I suppose it goes without saying that when a new law is being debated in the New York Senate concerning whether they should allow dogs to accompany their masters into outdoor areas in restaurants in the state of New York, cats are bound to be omitted from the discussion because cats don't do well on leashes, do they?  Well, a lot of cats do just fine on a leash although it does take longer to train them.  It's a great shame that cats are difficult to train to accept a leash and also that they are essentially solitary creatures and not pack animals because it makes them unsuited to accompany their owner to a restaurant or so the legislators believe.

In May 14, 2015 it was reported that the legislature of New York state were debating the right of dog owners to take their dogs to outside areas of restaurants.  The impression was that the bill would be passed.  Provided the dog is accompanied by the diner they will be allowed into outdoor eating areas.

Under the new law (not yet enacted) dogs will have to be kept on leashes.  Dogs cannot set foot inside the restaurant and they will enter through an alternative entrance.  Dogs will not be allowed into any outdoor areas where food is prepared.

It does seem very natural to allow a dog to eat with his owner because I'm sure that this happens a lot at home.  As mentioned, the bill makes no mention of cats being allowed in outdoor areas of restaurants.  Is the bill discriminating against cat owners? I wonder why they couldn't include cats into the legislation because there are cats around, as mentioned, who act rather like dogs and who are comfortable on a lead.  Provided they complied with all the rules are set out under the new legislation, I cannot see any reason why they should not be allowed to do what dogs can do.

Ah, I have just thought of a reason: the dogs will chase the cats! Therefore this is discrimination. Another form of discrimination is that cats are taken to the vet less than dogs.

The bill and the discussion indicates that people think that companion animals are inherently a health hazard to people otherwise the legislators would have allowed cats and dogs to company people to restaurants in the past.

As an aside, I consistently read that people who look after companion animals are some of the most prolific lobbyists of legislators in the USA.  They write the most e-mails and make more calls to politicians than other people.  This indicates a passion which we know that cat and dog owners have.

At the moment, as far as I know, California is the only state allowing dogs in outside areas of restaurants.