View Full Version : Cop shoots Dog on vid
This is making the rnds, showing LE shooting a dog after detaining (arresting?) his owner. Dog lovers be warned:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WDBZr4ie2AE
As expected, many are upset the dog was shot and killed, and it sucks to see to be sure. I saw the LEO clearly trying to be non combative with the dog and the dog then going on the attack and the threat (and anyone that does consider that animal a genuine threat when on attack mode needs to have head examined) stopped.
20/20 is what it is, but what would have been the best way to deal with that threat?
I'm more curious as to what the charge was to the man they detained (arrested?) that started the altercation and if that chain of events could have (should have?) been avoided as the starting point for that unfortunate outcome.
If the detainment (arrest?) was legit, and the owner failed to secure the dog (he very clearly knew he was about to be detained) and that was the outcome, the blame for it is with the owner, not the LEO who shot the dog.
But, if the detainment was not legit, and that can be proven, that PD may have a nasty law suit on its hands I'm thinking.
The dog was put into a car with the windows opened enough that it was able to get out easily. Regardless of all else....
As for the detainment, we only know he was filming the officers. They came to confront him and cuffed him immediately. Can't see where he did anything wrong or that justifies the detainment.
There must be something not on film.
There's not much to discuss, really. At it's core, this is the result of what happens when you live in a police state.
Littlelebowski
07-02-13, 12:16
As for the detainment, we only know he was filming the officers. They came to confront him and cuffed him immediately. Can't see where he did anything wrong or that justifies the detainment.
There must be something not on film.
I doubt it. Legit shoot but poor follow up on putting the dog out of its misery and the entire debacle could have been avoided if either side had done something different. The dog did nothing wrong.
Ok, the guy was going to his car, there is something about loud music coming from the car....The owner has a few run-ins with the police that may or may not have been from the same previous event and has filed complaints against the city police in the past.
He was held overnight for suspicion of obstruction of justice then released.....so no case...
Police supervisor claims they were protecting him from his own dog....LINK (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2353347/Police-shoot-kill-Rottweiler-street-dog-runs-owner-arrested-obstruction-justice.html)
The dog did nothing wrong.
Anyone that knows anything about dogs could have handled this better. It did nothing wrong and did not need to be shot even after barking.
Littlelebowski
07-02-13, 12:22
It looked to me like the dog was going for the cop, maybe after a tazer or pepper spray deployment. Not sure. As I see it, the cop was justified in the last few seconds but.....all of this could have been prevented. Police have no expectation of privacy while doing their jobs in public but if you don't want police trouble, don't provoke them and if securing a dog, tie it up or make sure it can't get out of the car.
The dog's loyalty to his owner is what got him killed, ultimately.
pepper spray and fire extinguishers
This sucks, and probably could have been handled alot better.
20/20 is what it is, but what would have been the best way to deal with that threat?
Not being so overzealous with "slapping the cuffs on" would have been a good start.
From my perspective it looked like the dog was fairly inquisitive and restrained initially. It also appeared that the cop approached the dog and was trying to grab the leash and that's when the dog appeared to go for a bite.
Rosby spent the night in jail on suspicion of obstruction... (http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/01/get-cuffed-for-filming-police-your-dog-g)
I have had to deal with dogs on several occasions while working. If the opportunity presented itself, I asked the dog owner to put the dog in the bathroom, utility room, garage, etc. and close the door. Most people understood and did what I asked.
I have only been charged by a few dogs. Pepper spray worked on all but one occasion. A good dose of pepper spray will usually do the trick if you have time and distance to deploy it.
Hitting a moving dog with the probes from a taser would be extremely difficult.
Not being so overzealous with "slapping the cuffs on" would have been a good start.
Slapping if cuffs meaning? Not sure I follow.
Slapping if cuffs meaning? Not sure I follow.
Handcuffing the subject?
Slapping if cuffs meaning? Not sure I follow.
My age and slang are showing... It's an older colloquialism meaning to be aggressive in making an arrest or applying handcuffs. In this case, they walked up and went straight for the handcuffs without assessing where and how the dog was secured. It's not like they didn't know it was there, after all.
mistake #1, provoking the police (sad truth)
mistake #2, cuffing someone for no apparent reason (unnecessary)
mistake #3, owner not securing dog properely.
mistake #4,not releasing the cooperative suspect to resecure his k9
mistake #5, not following the force continum and immediately using deadly force. (my opinion)
Voodoo_Man
07-02-13, 14:30
play stupid games win stupid prizes.
play stupid games win stupid prizes.
Pretty much sums it up.
NeoNeanderthal
07-02-13, 14:43
mistake #1, provoking the police (sad truth)
mistake #2, cuffing someone for no apparent reason (unnecessary)
mistake #3, owner not securing dog properely.
mistake #4,not releasing the cooperative suspect to resecure his k9
mistake #5, not following the force continum and immediately using deadly force. (my opinion)
That about sums it up. However i would add that Mistake #1 is only really a mistake because he had a dog with him. Provoking police when you have a dog with you is not a good idea, for the very reason shown in the video. If i had my dog with me and a police officer wanted to arrest/detain me theres no way my dog wouldn't atleast get up in the cops grill. He might not BITE the officer but he would bark, snap and look extremely dangerous. Which would be enough for a cop to shoot him. You are endangering your dog by provoking an officer when with your dog.
In the guys defense, i dont know that he "provoked" the officers, i'm not sure what actually happened to cause the confrontation. Also the window was up quite a bit and you can see the dog struggling to get out and squirming and then popping out. Guy miscalculated how small of a space his dog could get through (unfortunately).
Also the window was up quite a bit and you can see the dog struggling to get out and squirming and then popping out. Guy miscalculated how small of a space his dog could get through (unfortunately).
Well, he won't be making that mistake again.
My age and slang are showing... It's an older colloquialism meaning to be aggressive in making an arrest or applying handcuffs. In this case, they walked up and went straight for the handcuffs without assessing where and how the dog was secured. It's not like they didn't know it was there, after all.
They saw him put the dog in the car, so what additional assessment on their part was required? It's not their responsibility to make sure the dig was properly secured, it was the owners. He failed and lost his dog.
Whether the restraint with cuffs was legit might be the viable question here, but if so, it's SOP as far as I know.
Alaskapopo
07-02-13, 15:07
I don't have the background on why the guy was placed into handcuffs . But the use of lethal force on the animal was justified. It appeared to be a Rottweiler not a dog I would attempted to use pepper spray on. Also anyone who has every shot anything knows an animal goes through death throws. Its disturbing to watch the first time but it usually over in about 5 to 10 seconds. It does suck that the owner did not secure his dog better.
Pat
play stupid games win stupid prizes.
Yep, being black and filming the cops.
Eurodriver
07-02-13, 15:10
I'm sorry but..."Defending the owner too" just doesn't fly and makes the PD look like a bunch of assholes.
You know, we spent a hell of a lot of time in Iraq being taught how not to **** things up with locals.
Why don't police officers get the same training?
Alaskapopo
07-02-13, 15:16
I'm sorry
"Defending the owner too"
At least the cops got home safe. Its just a dog. etc etc.
You know, we spent a hell of a lot of time in Iraq being taught how not to **** things up with locals.
Why don't police officers get the same training?
Most officers get training in community policing and verbal judo. That was not the issue here with the dog being shot.
I also have quite a few active duty military friends who have served and told me they shot a lot of dogs over there. An officers safety comes before the dogs life or the owners feelings.
Pat
Whiskey_Bravo
07-02-13, 15:16
Whether the restraint with cuffs was legit might be the viable question here, but if so, it's SOP as far as I know.
If it's SOP to cuff someone and hold them on charges of "suspicion" of obstruction for having your cell phone out or loud music then the SOPs need to be changed because they are borderline police state SOPs at best.
Unless there was a reason for cuffing him that we didn't see prior to the video there was absolutely no justification for it. It's not like he was close to them and causing a problem, they had to walk a half a fing block to get to him. He immediately complied with them by putting up his dog and turning around.
If filming a LEO in public is "provoking" and officer we live in very sad times my friends. If it was the music a simple "turn the music down" would have probably worked, but wtf do I know maybe going straight to the arrest works better in diffusing the situation and building support in the neighborhood. Throw in a side of dog shooting and it's practically an instant PR boost with the public.
Voodoo_Man
07-02-13, 15:18
Here's the owner recounting the events...umm...yea...make your own determinations.
http://youtu.be/cqjyc6naDKI
Eurodriver
07-02-13, 15:20
Most officers get training in community policing and verbal judo. That was not the issue here with the dog being shot.
I also have quite a few active duty military friends who have served and told me they shot a lot of dogs over there. An officers safety comes before the dogs life or the owners feelings.
Pat
Don't lecture me on dogs overseas. I was with 1/3 when Motari got the bright idea to throw a puppy off a cliff. There were so many ****ing dogs over there it was ridiculous. People shot them all the time, but you know what? Ali Baba doesn't view dogs as his best buddy. They look at dogs like we view rats or baboobs. Some wild ass shit.
What I'm saying is now you have an entire neighborhood of people you really ****ed with and the entire country is viewing Hawthorne, California's PD as a bunch of incompetent assholes. And for what? Because the 3rd officer that did the shooting didn't hear the owner telling the dog to get back (which it was) and refused to use pepper spray.
I'll grant you that a 130lb Rottweiler is not something you take chances with. But now that agency looks like a bunch of tyrants.
This thread has all the variables and players needed for a fast descent. Therefore, this is the only warning that will be offered: Keep this civil and on point, or it locks in 3, 2...
One of the ways people may help this discussion stay upright is to add their first hand experience in the confrontation and control of animals in these types of fluid and dynamic situations. Help the group learn. What tips, tricks, and tactics could have brought this situation to a different end? Best practices for the confrontation of animals on the street, in traffic? What are the behaviors that dogs will exhibit that will help someone differentiate when an animal is frightened, escalating, aggressive, or a bite/attack is imminent? Is there a way to differentiate bites and approaches even in aggression?
Alaskapopo
07-02-13, 15:32
Don't lecture me on dogs overseas. I was with 1/3 when Motari got the bright idea to throw a puppy off a cliff. There were so many ****ing dogs over there it was ridiculous. People shot them all the time, but you know what? Ali Baba doesn't view dogs as his best buddy. They look at dogs like we view rats or baboobs. Some wild ass shit.
What I'm saying is now you have an entire neighborhood of people you really ****ed with and the entire country is viewing Hawthorne, California's PD as a bunch of incompetent assholes. And for what? Because the 3rd officer that did the shooting didn't hear the owner telling the dog to get back (which it was) and refused to use pepper spray.
I'll grant you that a 130lb Rottweiler is not something you take chances with. But now that agency looks like a bunch of tyrants.
Apparently you think it's ok for soldiers to defend themselves from dogs overseas but cops doing the same thing over here makes them tyrants.
The shoot was justified. I am not going to use pepper spray on a Rottweiler its far too dangerous of a breed to trust pepper spray to work on. Anyone who has ever used pepper spray knows its not 100% effective on people and even less so on animals nor due the effects take place immediately.
Pat
Voodoo_Man
07-02-13, 15:41
Just a note, some departments forbid the use of spray or electronic devices on an animal.
Were the shots legal? Yeah.
Necessary, or the right thing to do? Probably avoidable.
One of the ways people may help this discussion stay upright is to add their first hand experience in the confrontation and control of animals in these types of fluid and dynamic situations. Help the group learn. What tips, tricks, and tactics could have brought this situation to a different end?
How about a bit more broadened situational awareness so as to notice that the window was down pretty far? Enough to be able to say something like "Hey, I notice that your window is down kind of far. Would you mind making sure that your dog is secure while we talk to you?". Neither of the two was paying any attention to the dog until it was out of the car. Target fixation on those handcuffs, maybe?
Apparently you think it's ok for soldiers to defend themselves from dogs overseas but cops doing the same thing over here makes them tyrants.
Context: In conflict and underdeveloped areas, dogs will quickly go feral, form packs and become predatory so, it's often necessary to shoot them proactively. Very different circumstances than domestic cops dealing with domesticated dogs.
Alaskapopo
07-02-13, 15:55
How about a bit more broadened situational awareness so as to notice that the window was down pretty far? Enough to be able to say something like "Hey, I notice that your window is down kind of far. Would you mind making sure that your dog is secure while we talk to you?". Neither of the two was paying any attention to the dog until it was out of the car. Target fixation of those handcuffs, maybe?
They had a lot going on a street full of hostile people to keep track of and you expect them to notice that a window on the car is a inch or two too low?
Pat
7.62WildBill
07-02-13, 15:57
Apparently this is not an isolated event. There are hundreds of examples found on these pages (I read enough of them to feel depressed now);
https://www.facebook.com/TheyKilledMyDog
https://www.facebook.com/DogsShotbyPolice
Obviously this is a complicated issue. But one commonality I noticed in these stories, NONE of the officers tried to pepper spray the dogs first.
There is a local incident in the news involving a Labrador that was tied to a 10 foot leash in his own yard that was shot with a taser after startling the officer. One of the barbs hit the dog in the eye, permanently blinding the dog in that eye.
So my question is, what type of training do officers typically receive to deal with dogs? Can you tell the difference between a dog running to greet you, and one charging to attack?
Alaskapopo
07-02-13, 15:57
Context: In conflict and underdeveloped areas, dogs will quickly go feral, form packs and become predatory so, it's often necessary to shoot them proactively. Very different circumstances than domestic cops dealing with domesticated dogs.
Domestic dogs defending their owners are very dangerous especially dogs like Rottweilers with 2400 pounds of pressure per square inch. Also this was not a proactive use of force in getting rid of nuisance dogs, the officer was shooting to defend himself and his fellow officers from imminent serious physical injury.
Pat
Alaskapopo
07-02-13, 16:00
Apparently this is not an isolated event. There are hundreds of examples found on these pages (I read enough of them to feel depressed now);
https://www.facebook.com/TheyKilledMyDog
https://www.facebook.com/DogsShotbyPolice
Obviously this is a complicated issue. But one commonality I noticed in these stories, NONE of the officers tried to pepper spray the dogs first.
There is a local incident in the news involving a Labrador that was tied to a 10 foot leash in his own yard that was shot with a taser after startling the officer. One of the barbs hit the dog in the eye, permanently blinding the dog in that eye.
So my question is what type of training do officers typically receive to deal with dogs? Can you tell the difference between a dog running to greet you, and one charging to attack?
Pretty much no training in that area and frankly I am not going to wait to find out its intentions. Once its crossed a certain line in the sand its getting shot, tazed, peppper sprayed depending on the breed and the situation.
Pat
Domestic dogs defending their owners are very dangerous especially dogs like Rottweilers with 2400 pounds of pressure per square inch
No dog in the world can bite with that much pressure, let alone 1/4 of that. Few can even bite with a 1/10 of that much pressure. Try getting your facts straight.
They had a lot going on a street full of hostile people to keep track of and you expect them to notice that a window on the car is a inch or two too low?
Pat
They apparently didn't have that much going on because they were able move from their position to approach that guy over loud music. I also didn't notice a "street full of hostile people". So, yes I would have expected a bit more observation; especially since they were already aware of the presence of the dog.
Voodoo_Man
07-02-13, 16:01
Pretty much no training in that area and frankly I am not going to wait to find out its intentions. Once its crossed a certain line in the sand its getting shot, tazed, peppper sprayed depending on the breed and the situation.
Pat
I agree.
Alaskapopo
07-02-13, 16:03
No dog in the world can bite with that much pressure, let alone 1/4 of that. Few can even bite with a 1/10 of that much pressure. Try getting your facts straight.
Trusted the wrong web site. The point is still the same in that Rottweilers are a dangerous breed. Try harder to understand the content of the post rather than getting bogged down in harmless errors.
Pit Bull Bite: 235 pounds of force
German Shepherd: 238 pounds of force
Rottweiler: 328 pounds of force
Lion: 691 pounds of force
Hyena: 1000 pounds of force
Domestic dogs defending their owners are very dangerous especially dogs like Rottweilers with 2400 pounds of pressure per square inch. Also this was not a proactive use of force in getting rid of nuisance dogs, the officer was shooting to defend himself and his fellow officers from imminent serious physical injury.
Pat
My only point was that the context isn't there to compare the two. Nothing more.
Hyena: 1000 pounds of force
I once heard a hyena bite through the thigh bone of a kudu. I'll never forget that sound.
Alaskapopo
07-02-13, 16:06
They apparently didn't have that much going on because they were able move from their position to approach that guy over loud music. I also didn't notice a "street full of hostile people". So, yes I would have expected a bit more observation; especially since they were already aware of the presence of the dog.
They had long guns out which indicates to me a more dangerous type of call. They had a street full of people recording and making antagonistic comments such as "why are't their any black cops here etc" Basically put your trying to hold the officers to an un-realistic standard. Not trying to be rude but there is a lot going on when you have this kind of situation and unfortuantely not every detail can be observed by all the officers all the time.
Pat
7.62WildBill
07-02-13, 16:07
http://dogfacts.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/national-geographics-dr-brady-barrs-bite-pressure-tests/
Domestic dogs (avg of a pit bull, shepard, and rottweiler) 320 lbs
Crocodile 2500 lbs.
If a dog has his ears and tail up, he is interested.
If a dog has his ears back, hair up, and tail down; he is defending his turf.
the average bite strength was 269 pounds of pressure, with the Rottweiler topping the group with 328 pounds of bite pressure. Compare these to the bite strength of lions and white sharks which are both around 600 pounds, or the bone crushing hyena at around 1000 pounds, or more shocking, the Nile alligator which comes in at just under 2500 pounds.
Link: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/canine-corner/201005/dog-bite-force-myths-misinterpretations-and-realities
For the record: I wouldn't want to get bit, period!
They had long guns out which indicates to me a more dangerous type of call. They had a street full of people recording and making antagonistic comments such as "why are't their any black cops here etc"
C'mon, that's typical white noise. There was no hostile crowd. Well, at least not before the dog was shot.
Once the dog was out, things got out of hand in a hurry. My question is how and why was it allowed to get to that point? Watching the video and hearing the audio, my impression is that it was target fixation on getting out those handcuffs.
CarlosDJackal
07-02-13, 16:24
IMHO:
1) The Officers were too aggressive in detaining the suspect. It did not seem like they even bothered to have a conversation with him.
2) The suspect was obviously trying to provoke the Police into doing exactly what happened. You can tell by his actions that he was trying to gain their attention.
3) The suspect did not bother to ensure that his dog was properly secured in his car. All he had to do was close the window just a little bit more and this would have all been avoided.
4) The dog was given multiple opportunities to stop its aggressive action. I counted three attacks before it was shot. Would Pepper Spray have been a better option? Probably. But as someone who has been bitten twice and have had to receive seven rabies shots to his stomach; and dog that makes such a move on me will be shot. Pepper spray does not always work and I for one do not want to receive a third dog bite.
5) The Officer who shot the dog was obviously not a dog person (neither am I). It looked more to me that the dog started off playful and not aggressive. But then again, Rotties are known to change their demeanor in a split second.
6) This was a setup and the Officers let whatever the suspect said or do get to them. Some verbal judo probably would have gone a long way in preventing this type of outcome.
7) Am not sure how I feel about the Officer not finishing the dog off as it twitched on the ground. One the one hand the poor dog suffered. But on the other hand it would have looked worse if he did shoot a dog that was on the ground, twitching.
Yet another reason not to live in that screwed up state. It seems to be occupied with morons on both sides of the badge. JM2CW.
the average bite strength was 269 pounds of pressure, with the Rottweiler topping the group with 328 pounds of bite pressure. Compare these to the bite strength of lions and white sharks which are both around 600 pounds, or the bone crushing hyena at around 1000 pounds, or more shocking, the Nile alligator which comes in at just under 2500 pounds.
Link: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/canine-corner/201005/dog-bite-force-myths-misinterpretations-and-realities
I had a girlfriend once who probably could have made it onto that chart... [snare-roll]
So the police got themselves into a situation where they were presented with force that could have resulted in death or great bodily harm, and had to defend themselves. Shit happens. It sucks. Good shoot.
Alaskapopo
07-02-13, 16:32
C'mon, that's typical white noise. There was no hostile crowd. Well, at least not before the dog was shot.
Once the dog was out, things got out of hand in a hurry. My question is how and why was it allowed to get to that point? Watching the video and hearing the audio, my impression is that it was target fixation on getting out those handcuffs.
When you are about to handcuff someone you are target fixed on them as the time immediately before the cuffs go on is typical the most dangerous.
Pat
Whiskey_Bravo
07-02-13, 16:39
When you are about to handcuff someone you are target fixed on them as the time immediately before the cuffs go on is typical the most dangerous.
Pat
Especially when they are about to be handcuffed for the heinous crime of "suspicion" of obstruction involving a cell phone and scary music from half a block away.
So little baiting, insulting, childish post aside do you understand that Rottweilers are a bit more dangerous than the dog you showed in the photo or is that not something your willing to admit?
Don't feed the troll... But, I do have a sarcastic sense of humor so, I couldn't help laughing at the caption.
When you are about to handcuff someone you are target fixed on them as the time immediately before the cuffs go on is typical the most dangerous.
Pat
Is it not typical in a two-person approach that one is the contact and the other is cover? And that the cover maintains broad situational awareness for the contact while they focus on their task? What if it was a second person in the vehicle? Would the cover not have at least one eyeball on them?
Alaskapopo
07-02-13, 16:42
Especially when they are about to be handcuffed for the heinous crime of "suspicion" of obstruction involving a cell phone and scary music from half a block away.
Sarcasm aside if I feel the need to put someone into cuffs I treat it very seriously from the officer safety stand point.
Pat
Alaskapopo
07-02-13, 16:44
Don't feed the troll... But, I do have a sarcastic sense of humor so, I couldn't help laughing at the caption.
Is it not typical in a two-person approach that one is the contact and the other is cover? And that the cover maintains broad situational awareness for the contact while they focus on their task? What if it was a second person in the vehicle? Would the cover not have at least one eyeball on them?
Your correct on the contact cover concept and its a typical and sometimes fatal mistake for the cover officer to get drawn in. Basically put I am saying things happen, just like weapons get missed in pat down searches some times. Officers are not perfect and its hard to observe everything you should 100% of the time. Personally I would not have delt with this guy unless he was causing some serious problems. But I won't second guess the officers on scene with out all the information. And the shoot of the dog itself is justified.
Pat
LowSpeed_HighDrag
07-02-13, 16:56
I am a dog owner and lover, and the video was rough to watch. However, that was a good shoot. The dog was doing what he felt was right, the cops had to do what they felt was right, and the poor owner had to watch it unfold. A sad set of circumstances for all involved.
Littlelebowski
07-02-13, 16:59
Arresting that guy and killing that dog took away, it did not add. And the excuse the police dept put out about killing the dog for the safety of the owner is not something I could say with a straight face.
Imagine if they had ignored the citizen with the dog on the leash and the camera. This dept wouldn't be national news. Instead, they doubled down on stupidity with that laughably moronic public statement.
Alaskapopo
07-02-13, 17:05
Arresting that guy and killing that dog took away, it did not add. And the excuse the police dept put out about killing the dog for the safety of the owner is not something I could say with a straight face.
Imagine if they had ignored the citizen with the dog on the leash and the camera. This dept wouldn't be national news. Instead, they doubled down on stupidity with that laughably moronic public statement.
Is there some kind of score card? Like has been said it sucked the dog go shot but the shoot was justified end of story. As for the public statement you're correct they should have said the dog was shot to protect the officers and there is nothing at all wrong with that. Peoples lives come before dogs lives. However in this day and age of police hating administrators sometimes shy away from anything sounding like looking out for their officers.
Pat
So little baiting, insulting, childish post aside do you understand that Rottweilers are a bit more dangerous than the dog you showed in the photo or is that not something your willing to admit?
Actually, I meant no harm whatsoever - I have a very vivid imagination, so your post simply gave me the enthusiasm to create something I found very funny (I laugh at my own jokes regularly).
Imagine if they had ignored the citizen with the dog on the leash and the camera. This dept wouldn't be national news. Instead, they doubled down on stupidity with that laughably moronic public statement.
I agree that it appears to be a colossal cock-up on all fronts. I predict a large settlement or a crushing defeat in the civil suit.
Alaskapopo
07-02-13, 17:29
I agree that it appears to be a colossal cock-up on all fronts. I predict a large settlement or a crushing defeat in the civil suit.
They will probably settle out of court like 99% of these type of cases do for way more than the dog is worth but not really that much money in the end. Guessing $10K or so just to make the owner go away.
Pat
Littlelebowski
07-02-13, 17:37
Is there some kind of score card? Like has been said it sucked the dog go shot but the shoot was justified end of story. As for the public statement you're correct they should have said the dog was shot to protect the officers and there is nothing at all wrong with that. Peoples lives come before dogs lives. However in this day and age of police hating administrators sometimes shy away from anything sounding like looking out for their officers.
Pat
Deep breath...... Do you think that police have to carefully consider their public image? Do you think that arrest was needed and justified? Think about what I am saying.
Alaskapopo
07-02-13, 17:44
Deep breath...... Do you think that police have to carefully consider their public image? Do you think that arrest was needed and justified? Think about what I am saying.
Like I said before I don't know all the information leading up to his arrest. I also understand that public image is important but its the last thing that should be on an officers mind when he is making a split second life and death decision. Far too many officers get killed because they hesitate and use too little force far to late.
Pat
Littlelebowski
07-02-13, 17:48
Like I said before I don't know all the information leading up to his arrest. I also understand that public image is important but its the last thing that should be on an officers mind when he is making a split second life and death decision. Far too many officers get killed because they hesitate and use too little force far to late.
Pat
Try to be purely unbiased instead of repeating "I wasn't there, I don't know." Are you saying there was a split second life and death decision that made the officers arrest that man filming? Do you not think they could have ignored his filming and this police department wouldn't be deluged with a lawsuit and bad, bad, really bad, nationwide publicity?
Alaskapopo
07-02-13, 17:51
Try to be purely unbiased instead of repeating "I wasn't there, I don't know." Are you saying there was a split second life and death decision that made the officers arrest that man filming? Do you not think they could have ignored his filming and this police department wouldn't be deluged with a lawsuit and bad, bad, really bad, nationwide publicity?
I am isolating the arrest for the shooting. Personally I would have left the guy alone and let him film to his hearts content. But had another officer arrested him and if I were there to back him up and the dog came at me I would have shot it like in the video.
Pat
Your correct on the contact cover concept and its a typical and sometimes fatal mistake for the cover officer to get drawn in. Basically put I am saying things happen, just like weapons get missed in pat down searches some times. Officers are not perfect and its hard to observe everything you should 100% of the time.
And that's my point as well: they messed it up. They were too cavalier in their approach, they were target fixated, and they disregarded the potential threat posed by the dog.
NeoNeanderthal
07-02-13, 17:54
I think the bottom line is that the officers put themselves in a bad situation and a dog tragically lost it's life. The shooting itself was justified, but the situation which created it was not. Even if I was over zealous and created a bad situation needlessly…i still wouldn't let a large dog maul me. Like alaskapopo said, a humans life is worth more than a dogs. (Even a cop who ****ed up).
On a different (and more antagonistic) note. If i was the dog owner i would not have just gotten mad when they shot my dog. I would have (even in handcuffs) created the most ridiculous scene you had ever seen. I would have headbutted the cops holding me, bitten them, freaked the **** out, spit in their eyes and gotten tazed and arrested. If i wasnt in handcuffs some cops would get seriously hurt before i was tazed. Who just gets lippy with people who kill your dog (Using a situation they created to justify it)?
Alaskapopo
07-02-13, 17:55
And that's my point as well: they messed it up. They were too cavalier in their approach, they were target fixated, and they disregarded the potential threat posed by the dog.
That is a big leap from missing that the window might have been down to far to being total screw ups. Set aside the arrest for a second how are you going to get the window up higher. Go over there yourself and let the dog bite you. No of course not. So you allow the guy access to his vehicle where he could simply open the door and sick the dog on you if he felt he was getting arrested. Or he could use the opportunity to grab a weapon from inside the vehicle. Not a lot of good solutions to the window is down too far observation.
pat
Littlelebowski
07-02-13, 17:56
I am isolating the arrest for the shooting. Personally I would have left the guy alone and let him film to his hearts content. But had another officer arrested him and if I were there to back him up and the dog came at me I would have shot it like in the video.
Pat
Thank you. We are in agreement.
I am isolating the arrest for the shooting. Personally I would have left the guy alone and let him film to his hearts content. But had another officer arrested him and if I were there to back him up and the dog came at me I would have shot it like in the video.
Pat
While I partly agree, I don't think the two can be completely separated. Clinically, from a tactical perspective, yes. But, they're inseparable from a cause and effect standpoint. There were at least two points where the entire event could (and should) have been avoided. Nobody's likely to go to jail but, they're going to have to break out the checkbook.
And this might not be a $10k nuisance settlement. I'd be surprised if there's not a claim of civil rights violations or racial profiling. There were several people recording and they went straight for the black man who had just asked why there weren't any black cops there, immediately after he said it. And they went straight to the handcuffs. He was obviously trolling them and they fell for it.
Alaskapopo
07-02-13, 18:07
I think the bottom line is that the officers put themselves in a bad situation and a dog tragically lost it's life. The shooting itself was justified, but the situation which created it was not. Even if I was over zealous and created a bad situation needlessly…i still wouldn't let a large dog maul me. Like alaskapopo said, a humans life is worth more than a dogs. (Even a cop who ****ed up).
On a different (and more antagonistic) note. If i was the dog owner i would not have just gotten mad when they shot my dog. I would have (even in handcuffs) created the most ridiculous scene you had ever seen. I would have headbutted the cops holding me, bitten them, freaked the **** out, spit in their eyes and gotten tazed and arrested. If i wasnt in handcuffs some cops would get seriously hurt before i was tazed. Who just gets lippy with people who kill your dog (Using a situation they created to justify it)?
With respect that would have been a very bad move. Assault on an officer will land you a reasonable amount of time in jail. If you bit the officers that could escalate it to a felony assault, then you lose your gun rights. Assuming even if the officers were 100% in the wrong and false arrested you and shot your dog who was doing nothing aggressive at all. Your best course of action would be to hope its being recorded verbalize what you saw and ask why you are being arrested etc and then sue and talk to the feds about having your civil rights violated under the color of authority. That will get the officers in deep trouble and possibly jail time. You will get compensated financially etc.
Pat
Set aside the arrest for a second how are you going to get the window up higher. Go over there yourself and let the dog bite you. No of course not. So you allow the guy access to his vehicle where he could simply open the door and sick the dog on you if he felt he was getting arrested. Or he could use the opportunity to grab a weapon from inside the vehicle. Not a lot of good solutions to the window is down too far observation.
pat
Yes, and I would have been prepared for either contingency.
That is a big leap from missing that the window might have been down to far to being total screw ups.
I'm not seeing that they did anything right, tactically. And it resulted in shots fired and the dead dog. So, by definition, it was a total screw-up.
Alaskapopo
07-02-13, 18:17
Yes, and I would have been prepared for either contingency.
I'm not seeing that they did anything right, tactically. And it resulted in shots fired and the dead dog. So, by definition, it was a total screw-up.
Well I guess we are at a disagreement but it was enjoyable talking it out with you. Lets just hope that the officers involved learned from the incident.
Pat
Everybody take a deep breath. This is getting way too personal for some of you.
It looked liked to me the dog stopped his forward movement. Became interested in the leash handle mechanism, gave attention to it, looked back at officer, still held back in interest and then the officer leaned into it.
I am not a dog person. I have been bitten by several dogs. I have been chased by Rottweilers, I have recently as one month ago had someone's dog come busting through the door and in the excitement had his mouth/teeth on my arm/hand (but did not bite down ).
I think it was a bad shoot, especially considering the guy was begging them don't shoot my dog. They should have backed up or stood still..... anything but approach the dog.
They knew he had a big ass dog before it all started. It was clearly not being used as a weapon.
This one is just wrong, and again, I'm overly cautious of dogs and if -anyone- should realize the implications of restraining the master of that dog, prior to the dog being secured it should have been them.
If one of those guys didn't say wait a minute lets be sure the dog is secure I would seriously question their ability to do that type work in that environment.
This is just basic common sense. Everyone on the planet knows a dog is going to protect his master.
This has nothing to do with police but rather general stupidity. If your job involves working around dogs, and removing the master from the dog.... I mean come on.....
I have had several somewhat similar instances and you ALWAYS secure the dog first. It' life 101. Most people learn it around age 3 or 4.
It was stupid, it was incompetent, it was avoidable and it all falls on the authorities. Capital CF
Well I guess we are at a disagreement but it was enjoyable talking it out with you. Lets just hope that the officers involved learned from the incident.
Pat
I don't think the lessons are over yet. I imagine that the mayor or city manager have already laid into the chief, who has laid into the captain, who has... and so on, and so forth...
...and then the officer leaned into it.
I saw that and thought: "he must not want that hand back".
I am not a dog person. I have been bitten by several dogs. I have been chased by Rottweilers, I have recently as one month ago had someone's dog come busting through the door and in the excitement had his mouth/teeth on my arm/hand (but did not bite down ).
Apparently you are a dog person, just not the kind that you would prefer to be. Maybe they can sense that you were a mail carrier in a previous life. :sarcastic:
The officers completely created that situation. No way around it. Rotties are not nearly as dangerous as some would have you believe.
Police officers have been conditioned with years of propaganda that their jobs are uber-dangerous and that almost every single shooting will be judged as justified regardless of circumstances. The Chief or Lieutenant will stand in front of the camera and proclaim that they followed protocol and did everything absolutely correct.
Even when they negligently murder people, they get a week off with pay and go back to it....LINK (http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x1401026911/Search-for-answers-begins-in-Framingham-SWAT-raid-death?zc_p=0#axzz2Xui6F5V8)
It is a systemic disease.
GeorgiaBoy
07-02-13, 19:12
Imagine if the situation was reversed and it was a K9 dog that was shot...
There's not much to discuss, really. At it's core, this is the result of what happens when you live in a police state.
^This.
Makes me sick.
I saw that and thought: "he must not want that hand back".
I Know!! I thought WTF was he thinking. He's leaning down to pick the leash up.. Hey, I know... I'll put my face right in his then grab his leash....
GeorgiaBoy
07-02-13, 19:21
Or a cop serving a warrant on the wrong house for marijuana and he gets shot and killed. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Right?
Right.
I Know!! I thought WTF was he thinking. He's leaning down to pick the leash up.. Hey, I know... I'll put my face right in his then grab his leash....
Someone needs to hangout with the K9 guys to get some pointers.....
Maybe the cops trained in 'Verbal Judo' need a a white belt class in animal behavior.
Hawthorne is Disneyland...
http://forums.trinituner.com/upload/hi-enna2.jpg
http://apowl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/hyenamen.jpg
NeoNeanderthal
07-02-13, 19:51
Police officers have been conditioned with years of propaganda that their jobs are uber-dangerous and that almost every single shooting will be judged as justified regardless of circumstances.
Even when they negligently murder people, they get a week off with pay and go back to it...
It is a systemic disease.
Wow. That is quite a jump there buddy.
Wow. That is quite a jump there buddy.
Not really. How often do you hear about a police chief going into a press conference and saying, "Yeah, our guy ****ed up and had piss poor trigger discipline. His shooting of the 72 year old grandfather is inexusable and we expect better from not only our uniformed patrol officers but, especially, our entry teams. Not only has he been removed from the force without pay but the DA will be filing charges in the morning....."
Despite the owner more than likely being a douche nossle the actions of that officer are despicable and I hope he pays for this with his job.
And that's my point as well: they messed it up. They were too cavalier in their approach, they were target fixated, and they disregarded the potential threat posed by the dog.
If one had "covered" the dog they would have been accused of waiting for an excuse to kill it. This is an emotional issue for animal lovers and facts are generally ignored. Like the fact that the owner got his dog shot by his own actions and poor judgement.
I want to make very clear that my opinion is the owner of an animal has the main responsibility to care for it. Taking an aggressive dog out with you to taunt the police is ultimately a complete failure on the owners part. Could the cops have been a bit more restrained? Arguably, but they were there to do a job. A job that had the SWAT truck, at least a half dozen squad cars, and patrol breaking out carbines. I suspect that the level of interference required to be obstructing goes down as the danger level of the job goes up, and I think that is reasonable.
but they were there to do a job. A job that had the SWAT truck, at least a half dozen squad cars, and patrol breaking out carbines. I suspect that the level of interference required to be obstructing goes down as the danger level of the job goes up, and I think that is reasonable.
But it wasn't so important that they could take the time to meander over to him after he was over half a block away to confront him....
If he was obstructing them, they should have handled it when he was within a block of their position.
DocHolliday01
07-02-13, 22:25
Domestic dogs defending their owners are very dangerous especially dogs like Rottweilers with 2400 pounds of pressure per square inch. Also this was not a proactive use of force in getting rid of nuisance dogs, the officer was shooting to defend himself and his fellow officers from imminent serious physical injury.
Pat
2400 Pounds of pressure? Try around 600 or less. 2400 is gator territory.
This was a bad call on the cops part. The whole situation was a CF from the start. Just another black eye to the Profession.
It looked to me like the dog was going for the cop, maybe after a tazer or pepper spray deployment. Not sure. As I see it, the cop was justified in the last few seconds but.....all of this could have been prevented. Police have no expectation of privacy while doing their jobs in public but if you don't want police trouble, don't provoke them and if securing a dog, tie it up or make sure it can't get out of the car.
The dog's loyalty to his owner is what got him killed, ultimately.
So much to agree with.
Sadly the guy who got arrested should have done a better job taking care of his "buddy" and should have KNOWN what his "buddy" WOULD DO and what the PD would likely do.
****ing shame, looked like a wonderful Rottie.
Most officers get training in community policing and verbal judo.................
Pat
Those are techniques taught to police who are not street wise and are not actively involved in the communities they serve. Office pogues with little or no street experience push these techniques down to street cops who know how to do their jobs before this bullshit was presented as the way to more effectively get the job done.
Be a part of your community and protect your community. That's the way to get the job done.
Back on topic. If a dog charges you and you feel threatened, shoot it. This rule applies to both civilians and LEO.
..... and facts are generally ignored.
Yeah, like the fact that professionals are held to higher standards, that's why they are given professional status in our society.
Like it or not they are supposed to know better.
I want to make very clear that my opinion is the owner of an animal has the main responsibility to care for it.
True, the main responsibility. However when a professional creates a situation where the dog then becomes a danger beyond the owners control, the responsibility then falls to the professional.
It's not like police and dogs are some new phenomenon. Not like those guys were diffusing a bomb and cut the wrong wire. They walked into, of their own accord, a situation that we are taught as children to recognize as potentially dangerous. With their professional status, they ---should have known ---. They over rode the responsible actions of the citizen. They prevented the citizen from regaining control of the situation. They just flat out ****ed up... I don't know how else to say it.
The guy that owns the dog may be the biggest idiot on earth but he showed good will and responsible action by placing the dog in the car.
The professionals controlled the situation after that and ultimately take responsibility.
No different than a vet putting your dog down by accident. You blame him or yourself. Of course you blame him. If the dog bites your vet,,, it's still his problem.. he accepted the responsibility. The police accepted the responsibility, same thing.
I can't think of any professional in our society that does not owe the public safety as a first order of business.
It's really not about the love of pets. It's about professionalism and serving society.
when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail....
you dont see postmen killing dogs on a weekly basis...
bear spray is 2% OC... it will make a pissed off grizz run... the cops carry 10%.. yet they feel the need to bust a few caps off...
what would happen if when shooting a dog, the skip 1 off the pavement and hit a kid down the block?
Alaskapopo
07-03-13, 01:43
when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail....
you dont see postmen killing dogs on a weekly basis...
bear spray is 2% OC... it will make a pissed off grizz run... the cops carry 10%.. yet they feel the need to bust a few caps off...
what would happen if when shooting a dog, the skip 1 off the pavement and hit a kid down the block?
Was going to try to stay of this thread but I have to speak to this one. Having used pepper spray on more people and dogs than i can remember in 14 years, I can attest to the fact it does not work all the time (if I had to put a number to it I would say about 60% of the time) and like I said the reaction is not always immediate. In fact sometimes it takes a while for the subject to feel the effects. Its not a cure all and I don't trust it on large breeds. Its also not reliable on bears. Its better than nothing but your a fool if all you take into the woods up here is a can of pepper spray. The Taser is much more effective but it has its limitations as well.
Pat
Was going to try to stay of this thread but I have to speak to this one. Having used pepper spray on more people and dogs than i can remember in 14 years, I can attest to the fact it does not work all the time (if I had to put a number to it I would say about 60% of the time) and like I said the reaction is not always immediate. In fact sometimes it takes a while for the subject to feel the effects. Its not a cure all and I don't trust it on large breeds. Its also not reliable on bears. Its better than nothing but your a fool if all you take into the woods up here is a can of pepper spray. The Taser is much more effective but it has its limitations as well.
Pat
Maybe they need to issue squirt guns with lemon juice.
I recall 12 year old kids in Iowa deterring some pretty aggressive dogs while throwing newspapers on the porch which the dog considered "home" territory.
Alaskapopo
07-03-13, 02:08
Maybe they need to issue squirt guns with lemon juice.
I recall 12 year old kids in Iowa deterring some pretty aggressive dogs while throwing newspapers on the porch which the dog considered "home" territory.
I had a paper route as a kid and got bit a few times and I used pepper spray, bicycle pumps (as a club) etc at different times. I love dogs but I also know they can do some serious damage. Given the choice between getting bit and killing the dog I will kill the dog.
Pat
I had a paper route as a kid and got bit a few times and I used pepper spray, bicycle pumps (as a club) etc at different times. I love dogs but I also know they can do some serious damage. Given the choice between getting bit and killing the dog I will kill the dog.
Pat
I don't think anyone should have to get bit in the course of their job. But there were more than a few options and opportunities in that video that could have prevented the need to shoot the dog.
A big part of not getting bit is not letting the situation develop to the point where somebody is at risk of being bit. Stevie Wonder could have seen that one coming.
GeorgiaBoy
07-03-13, 02:25
Was going to try to stay of this thread but I have to speak to this one. Having used pepper spray on more people and dogs than i can remember in 14 years, I can attest to the fact it does not work all the time (if I had to put a number to it I would say about 60% of the time) and like I said the reaction is not always immediate. In fact sometimes it takes a while for the subject to feel the effects.
Pat
Is it actually worth it to use lethal force on someone's pet because you think that a non-lethal alternative like pepper spray won't work?
Alaskapopo
07-03-13, 02:33
Is it actually worth it to use lethal force on someone's pet because you think that a non-lethal alternative like pepper spray won't work?
It depends on the breed for me. A Pitbull, Rottweiler and a German Shepard's can put a hurting on you fast. A buddy of mine trains K-9's and I never want to be on the wrong end of one of those. They can hurt you bad and fast. Now if its a lab I will try a less lethal alternative. But a dangerous breed I am not going to chance it. I have had pepper spray fail on pits before not going to try that again. To me as much as we love them dogs are property and human life and even avoiding human injury comes before a dogs life. Anyway just wanted to address the issue of pepper spray and less lethal. I have already said all I am going to say about the original incident. Don't want to get caught up in that again. Have a good night everyone.
Pat
Here are the final seconds leading up to the shooting. I'm wondering what was going through the officer's mind to creep up and bait the dog into jumping.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afNCONnqaB0
Eurodriver
07-03-13, 08:15
Be a part of your community and protect your community. That's the way to get the job done.
Back on topic. If a dog charges you and you feel threatened, shoot it. This rule applies to both civilians and LEO.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. If the cops didn't view that community as a ghetto, they wouldn't have blew the dog away.
FWIW, I don't think anyone here has any problems with officers shooting dogs that are attacking them at all. I know I don't. If an aggressive Rotty came into my office I'd shoot it too.
The issue lies with how they approached, handled, and then tried to "whitewash" the issue afterwards. I know how the law works, once you have a suspect detained you are responsible for their safety. But telling the world (and yes, that PD is now on the world's radar) that you shot that dog because you were "protecting the owner" when the world just sees the dog just protecting the owner as well, you have a really bad PR rep. It makes you look stupid even if its entirely true.
The world is looking at that PD as if they arrested that guy because he was black, shot his dog just as a "Haha, suck on that" and then released him later that day.
Now we all know that's not true. But read any blog, website, or forum other than pro LEO. They don't.
Alaskapopo
07-03-13, 08:22
This is exactly what I'm talking about. If the cops didn't view that community as a ghetto, they wouldn't have blew the dog away.
FWIW, I don't think anyone here has any problems with officers shooting dogs that are attacking them at all. I know I don't. If an aggressive Rotty came into my office I'd shoot it too.
The issue lies with how they approached, handled, and then tried to "whitewash" the issue afterwards. I know how the law works, once you have a suspect detained you are responsible for their safety. But telling the world (and yes, that PD is now on the world's radar) that you shot that dog because you were "protecting the owner" when the world just sees the dog just protecting the owner as well, you have a really bad PR rep. It makes you look stupid even if its entirely true.
The world is looking at that PD as if they arrested that guy because he was black, shot his dog just as a "Haha, suck on that" and then released him later that day.
Now we all know that's not true. But read any blog, website, or forum other than pro LEO. They don't.
I don't work LA or areas like that but I feel its a vicious circle. The cops don't treat people as well as they should because they get treated like crap which makes the people treat them worse and it can spiral out of control. I am fortunate to work in a community where we don't have that friction and there is mutual respect.
Pat
Here are the final seconds leading up to the shooting. I'm wondering what was going through the officer's mind to creep up and bait the dog into jumping.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afNCONnqaB0
I bet he feels VERY well... I would do. The dog deserved it, and I hope the owner get his punishment as well.
No one has to endure big, vicious dogs on the street, ever.
Here are the final seconds leading up to the shooting. I'm wondering what was going through the officer's mind to creep up and bait the dog into jumping.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afNCONnqaB0
Watching the last 2 seconds of an event out of context is not very useful. "Bait" the dog? I must have watched a different video.... :blink:
Good shoot in my view. Reguardless of circumstances, I'd dispatch any 'in my opinion' vicious dog that gets that close.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. If the cops didn't view that community as a ghetto, they wouldn't have blew the dog away.
FWIW, I don't think anyone here has any problems with officers shooting dogs that are attacking them at all. I know I don't. If an aggressive Rotty came into my office I'd shoot it too.
The issue lies with how they approached, handled, and then tried to "whitewash" the issue afterwards. I know how the law works, once you have a suspect detained you are responsible for their safety. But telling the world (and yes, that PD is now on the world's radar) that you shot that dog because you were "protecting the owner" when the world just sees the dog just protecting the owner as well, you have a really bad PR rep. It makes you look stupid even if its entirely true.
The world is looking at that PD as if they arrested that guy because he was black, shot his dog just as a "Haha, suck on that" and then released him later that day.
Now we all know that's not true. But read any blog, website, or forum other than pro LEO. They don't.
I agree that their saying it was to protect the owner is pretty lame (but again, technically true) and more important, not needed. Simply stating the obvious: the dog attacked and the LEO was forced to dispatch the dog, due ultimately to the owners negligence, would have been sufficient to be sure and true.
But, the fact is, it wouldn't matter what they said, wouldn't change a thing in the minds of those who have their pre conceived opinions of LE and there's nothing short of allowing that dog to rip a hand off before getting shot would they admit perhaps it was justified, and even then...
What annoys me to no end is, those will be the first people to hit 911 when bad things happen.
Littlelebowski
07-03-13, 10:15
What annoys me to no end is, those will be the first people to hit 911 when bad things happen.
Which is a direct byproduct of LBJ helping destroy personal responsibility and the black family. Not a cop/citizen thing.
Question: Why was the dog's owner placed in cuffs to begin with. HE seemed to be standing at least half a block from the scene. He was video taping the officers and walking his dog. Why was he detained?
It's a shame the dog died because it's owner was a dumbass. YES, he has a right to video the police, but HE's the one that had the dog with him. The dog was obviously excited from all the goings on. The owner tried to put the dog in the car when he say the police approach, but he forgot about the open window. The dog did what any dog would do, try to protect his master. Unfortunately, the officer felt threatened when the dog went for him, and he shot the dog. I blame the owner for this dog's death, not the officer. However, I'm not sure the police had a legitimate reason to detain or cuff the owner. "Sir, please put your dog in the car so he won't bite me, and let's have a talk"....
bear spray is 2% OC... it will make a pissed off grizz run... the cops carry 10%.. yet they feel the need to bust a few caps off...
Its not a cure all and I don't trust it on large breeds. Its also not reliable on bears. Its better than nothing but your a fool if all you take into the woods up here is a can of pepper spray.
I agree with Pat, here. Dealing with guard-breed dogs is different than others. Manufacturers of "invisible fence"-type systems will specifically tell you that their systems are not guaranteed for use with guard-breed dogs because, when they get excited, they'll blow right through those systems. Same with OC: it may work, it may not.
Ring, I'd suggest that you read-up on how OC sprays work because you're using the wrong measurement to claim how effective it should be. You're referencing the concentration (%) of the solution, not the heat units.
Would I have attempted to use OC in the situation in the video? Yes. That dog was not out for blood when it was shot.
Here are the final seconds leading up to the shooting. I'm wondering what was going through the officer's mind to creep up and bait the dog into jumping.
I didn't see that he was intentionally baiting the dog. He was being a dummy for extending his face and hand towards the dog but, I have a hard time believing he was baiting it.
It's a shame the dog died because it's owner was a dumbass. YES, he has a right to video the police, but HE's the one that had the dog with him.
So, having a leashed dog out in public is unwise, negligent, unreasonable, or illegal? The owner actually appeared to be a responsible dog owner: the dog was leashed, appeared to be well-fed, clean, and he put the dog in the car of his own accord. I'm not seeing how any of that makes him a dumbass.
The dog was obviously excited from all the goings on. The owner tried to put the dog in the car when he say the police approach, but he forgot about the open window. The dog did what any dog would do, try to protect his master. Unfortunately, the officer felt threatened when the dog went for him, and he shot the dog. I blame the owner for this dog's death, not the officer. However, I'm not sure the police had a legitimate reason to detain or cuff the owner. "Sir, please put your dog in the car so he won't bite me, and let's have a talk"....
So, the owner was not allowed to have his leashed dog out in public (?), he did the right thing by putting the dog in the car, the police didn't have a legitimate reason to detain the owner, and the dog only lunged at the shooting officer when said officer reached for the dog; yet it's somehow the owner's fault the dog was shot? I'm just not tracking the logic. At all.
The dog deserved it
Nope.
Personally I laugh in the face and camera of anyone that whips out there phone to record me (or ipad). Go for it, just let me know what you're going to tag it as on youtube.
Didn't watch the vid, as I don't care. We already know how it will be viewed no matter what was taking place.
Police State, Evil Cops, Gestapo, ect, ect, ect. I seriously believe the dumbed down populace believes we sit around talking about how we can infringe on people's lives lol.
I'm so over it. If these people want to make it "us against them", so be it. Drink your fluoride, eat your silicone mcnuggets and hate the police.....that is until you want to use us as a harassment force against your ex, or you want a SWAT team to go kick doors because your baby daddy wont give "lil dipshit" back to you, or you hear a bump in the night and are too jellyfish to go check your home yourself........whatever.
I read on various other sources this guy had a history win the PD. he has a pending lawsuit over some incident he was involved in.
The poor dog did not deserve to die like this but I understand the officer was trying to defend himself.
The officer should not have reached down like that.
I'm not quite sure why they detained the owner without talking to him. Is that an SOP to cuff the subject immediately ? Was he interfering with their operation ?
Didn't watch the vid, as I don't care. We already know how it will be viewed no matter what was taking place.
Then why comment at all? And why not watch the video? There might actually be some teachable moments in there.
Eurodriver
07-03-13, 11:48
Then why comment at all? And why not watch the video? There might actually be some teachable moments in there.
Because just as Will pointed out that there are people who will always find fault with actions police take, there are LEOs that will never find fault with actions police take.
That dog could have been hanging off the LEO's arm, growling and tearing flesh and you'd have some freaks exclaiming how it was still unnecessary to shoot the dog.
On the other hand, you have some LEOs who would defend the LEO if he casually walked up to the vehicle and shot the dog because it was barking and jumping around and the window was open.
Then why comment at all? And why not watch the video? There might actually be some teachable moments in there.
Teachable moments? Ya its called don't give a shit if some dumbass moron videos you (your car has a camera, derp). So ya.....I suppose.
Now on the dogs.....sorry I don't play around with dogs. I ask the owners to put them up politely. But if they come at me, they're getting pepper sprayed, if that doesn't deter them fido gets a dirt nap. And I love dogs, but I've also seen first hand what a pissed off pit will do to someone's limbs.
But none of that matters. .Gov wants it to be "us against them". And the fluorided, GMO'ed, dumbed down citizenry buy into it full bore. But as I stated above, people will bash cops all day long, but when shit goes bad or they want to harass someone......guess who they call first....lol.
Because just as Will pointed out that there are people who will always find fault with actions police take, there are LEOs that will never find fault with actions police take.
That dog could have been hanging off the LEO's arm, growling and tearing flesh and you'd have some freaks exclaiming how it was still unnecessary to shoot the dog.
On the other hand, you have some LEOs who would defend the LEO if he casually walked up to the vehicle and shot the dog because it was barking and jumping around and the window was open.
Sad, but true on all counts.
.Gov wants it to be "us against them".. And the fluorided, GMO'ed, dumbed down citizenry ....
Interesting bringing issues like that into this....Do mean to infer that anyone that is not fully supportive of police are unthinking government manipulated drones?
Aren't the police the agents of the Gov.? So the government employees enforcing the laws of the government are victims of the government manipulated citenzry?
Some people here apparently like dogs more than their hands or health...
Not me :sarcastic:
Interesting bringing issues like that into this....Do mean to infer that anyone that is not fully supportive of police are unthinking government manipulated drones?
Aren't the police the agents of the Gov.? So the government employees enforcing the laws of the government are victims of the government manipulated citenzry?
You missed the road sign a few miles back...
http://www.indiamike.com/india/attachments/8763d1227258262-quality-of-life-on-19-000rs-month-trolls_feed.jpg
You missed the road sign a few miles back...
Not familiar with that screen name so, yeah, I missed the sign. Thanks...
didnt see if anyone has posted this yet, and i dont have the link yet but i believe the source is reliable.
the same officer that shot the k9 is also responsible for previously costing that department over 1 million in court for a case of excessive use of force....
pattern???
EDIT found the link
http://www.examiner.com/article/hawthorne-police-officer-who-killed-dog-has-a-past-charge-of-police-brutality
also how can they get away with saying filming a LEO on duty is a felony... still cant wrap my head around that...
Teachable moments? Ya its called don't give a shit if some dumbass moron videos you (your car has a camera, derp). So ya.....I suppose.
Now on the dogs.....sorry I don't play around with dogs. I ask the owners to put them up politely. But if they come at me, they're getting pepper sprayed, if that doesn't deter them fido gets a dirt nap. And I love dogs, but I've also seen first hand what a pissed off pit will do to someone's limbs.
But none of that matters. .Gov wants it to be "us against them". And the fluorided, GMO'ed, dumbed down citizenry buy into it full bore. But as I stated above, people will bash cops all day long, but when shit goes bad or they want to harass someone......guess who they call first....lol.
I think there should be a national 911 Opt Out. For those who think the LE is of no value to them, etc etc (the "fu*^% the police" types) they should be allowed to opt out of the 911 system.
Would never happen of course (can't have citizens fending for themselves and all that even if they are criminals, etc) but the actual # of people opted out would be telling.
I suspect it would be very small % of people who take every any and chance to criticize LE that wouldn't want to retain their ability to call those same LE when someone is attempting to kick their door in.
YES, everyone in this country has the right, and perhaps duty, to question authority, but there's a large % of people (some who post here) who have zero interest in any objective view of any actions by LE and go into "jack booted thugs" mode regardless of the evidence/info in front of them as they simply don't like LE yet often don't have the decency or nads to simply say it.
YES, everyone in this country has the right, and perhaps duty, to question authority, but there's a large % of people (some who post here) who have zero interest in any objective view of any actions by LE and go into "jack booted thugs" mode regardless of the evidence/info in front of them as they simply don't like LE yet often don't have the decency or nads to simply say it.
To be fair, there are Popo's ( ;) ) on this board who continue to solidify the "Us vs Them" line in the sand. It's not just us tinfoilians.
Incidents like this certainly don't help the matter either. The knee-jerk "jack booted thugs" claim is not completely unwarranted.
don't have the decency or nads to simply say it.
This kind of speech is pretty heavily regulated here. It's not a lack of decency or nads, it's being censored for the greater good.
I think there should be a national 911 Opt Out. For those who think the LE is of no value to them, etc etc (the "fu*^% the police" types) they should be allowed to opt out of the 911 system.
Would never happen of course (can't have citizens fending for themselves and all that even if they are criminals, etc) but the actual # of people opted out would be telling.
That's a pretty disingenuous argument. Many, many, MANY areas (my own included) have no police force and are very, very, VERY low in crime rate. We have guns and we have a county Sheriff - that's all that's needed (after all, police are simply "good guys" with guns).
Secondly, you seem to imply that "opting out" of 911 is a one-way street (perhaps I'm reading it wrong) that only hurts those who do so. If those who opted out didn't have to pay taxes for support of said police department, you'd find MANY who would be willing to do so (probably inversely related to income levels).
If I lived in a city, I would GLADLY opt out of police protection. More often than not, the police only serve to solve crimes after the fact. My state is a castle-doctrine state, so there's nothing the police can't do in my defense that I can't do better.
I just don't see any point to your statement other than to say "Well, when given the option to opt out of police protection, no one would take it." I genuinely would.
To be fair, there are Popo's ( ;) ) on this board who continue to solidify the "Us vs Them" line in the sand. It's not just us tinfoilians.
I don't agree. I find the LEO on this forum do an excellent job of trying to educate people on the reality of LE work and I don't generally have an issue with vast majority of their comments. It's the tinfoilians I find who have drawn that line in the sand and no matter what LE says, it's rejected and debated and argued.
Incidents like this certainly don't help the matter either. The knee-jerk "jack booted thugs" claim is not completely unwarranted.
The shoot was good, the shoot was fully warranted, the owner set up the confrontation intentionally (and the LEOs took the bait) to get arrested and is (1) 100% responsible for the dogs death (2) a complete POS for #1.
Yes, some (per comments above) will watch exact same vid I did and conclude, through usual lens, it was all jack booted thug behavior on the side of LE.
LE are human beings, and they do fu&% on occasion to be sure, and should be held accountable. That's a given.
I however will start from a position of giving the LEO, or soldier, or other professional who puts their ass on the line the benefit of the doubt from the start.
This kind of speech is pretty heavily regulated here. It's not a lack of decency or nads, it's being censored for the greater good.
Personally, I think the mods already show more restraint than they should on that score.
YES, everyone in this country has the right, and perhaps duty, to question authority, but there's a large % of people (some who post here) who have zero interest in any objective view of any actions by LE and go into "jack booted thugs" mode regardless of the evidence/info in front of them as they simply don't like LE yet often don't have the decency or nads to simply say it.
I think that's because, if you read all of the literature associated with this country's founding, you'll find ZERO (yes, quote me on that) support for police. That's not to say there's no support for law and law enforcement - on the contrary, constables and sheriffs are positions which are very constitutional. Those positions serve to support law, order, detainment when necessary, etc.
The position of a POLICE force, however, is almost the antithesis of freedom (just look at the definition of the word "police" alone). I'm not going to debate that we shouldn't have them - they're here and that's just the way it is - but I think many here, especially libertarian-minded individuals realize this.
It's not a hate or even anger, but rather realizing that they (the police) are many times, by existence alone, at odds with the very principles this country was founded on, regardless of the good they provide. Yes, it is nice to have them and they provide force and manpower to get rid of crime and evil people, but there's always a side-effect, a negative consequence to having such power.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have" comes to mind.
Just my .02
That's a pretty disingenuous argument. Many, many, MANY areas (my own included) have no police force and are very, very, VERY low in crime rate. We have guns and we have a county Sheriff - that's all that's needed (after all, police are simply "good guys" with guns).
I'm not following the above as it relates to my comments. I think you may have misconstrued what I was saying there. ;)
Secondly, you seem to imply that "opting out" of 911 is a one-way street (perhaps I'm reading it wrong) that only hurts those who do so. If those who opted out didn't have to pay taxes for support of said police department, you'd find MANY who would be willing to do so (probably inversely related to income levels).
That's an interesting point I didn't add to the equation. What if people could opt out of the 911 system and paying taxes to support that system? I agree, that would change the outcome, but I'm not sure if for most, it would be a net positive for them. Yes, a tiny % of people ate indeed self sufficient on many fronts, most are not, and just think they are and or are cheap schmucks who'd do it to save the $$$. :eek:
If I lived in a city, I would GLADLY opt out of police protection. More often than not, the police only serve to solve crimes after the fact. My state is a castle-doctrine state, so there's nothing the police can't do in my defense that I can't do better.
I just don't see any point to your statement other than to say "Well, when given the option to opt out of police protection, no one would take it." I genuinely would.
I don't think most would personally, but you bring up interesting points to that topic. It was a semi serious rant on my end.
That's a pretty disingenuous argument. Many, many, MANY areas (my own included) have no police force and are very, very, VERY low in crime rate. We have guns and we have a county Sheriff - that's all that's needed (after all, police are simply "good guys" with guns)..
So a Sheriff and Deputy's are not law enforcement(aka police)?
I think that's because, if you read all of the literature associated with this country's founding, you'll find ZERO (yes, quote me on that) support for police. That's not to say there's no support for law and law enforcement - on the contrary, constables and sheriffs are positions which are very constitutional. Those positions serve to support law, order, detainment when necessary, etc.
The position of a POLICE force, however, is almost the antithesis of freedom (just look at the definition of the word "police" alone). I'm not going to debate that we shouldn't have them - they're here and that's just the way it is - but I think many here, especially libertarian-minded individuals realize this.
It's not a hate or even anger, but rather realizing that they (the police) are many times, by existence alone, at odds with the very principles this country was founded on, regardless of the good they provide. Yes, it is nice to have them and they provide force and manpower to get rid of crime and evil people, but there's always a side-effect, a negative consequence to having such power.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have" comes to mind.
Just my .02
Some good points there and as a Libertarian leaning person to be sure, I agree with the basic premise. But, do you seriously think the average person who dislikes the police has any of that thought process going through their heads at any time in their lives? Really?
99.8%* of the people tested would be unable to identify who made that quote.
* = yes, I pulled that figure from my a$$ but you get the idea. I'd settle for 92.6% :cool:
It's not a hate or even anger, but rather realizing that they (the police) are many times, by existence alone, at odds with the very principles this country was founded on, regardless of the good they provide. Yes, it is nice to have them and they provide force and manpower to get rid of crime and evil people, but there's always a side-effect, a negative consequence to having such power.
This Government was not founded on the principle of anarchy, which is what you've confused as libertarianism.
With the rule of law comes Law Enforcement. If you don't understand that, I suggest you educate yourself on the legal system.
But lets not derail this thread.......
F'in pigs just killin ery thang yo....
It should be iterated that criticism of certain police events or trends does not equate to a "**** the police" attitude.
Police are empowered by law to perform specific duties and that empowerment should come with great responsibilities and oversight.
The unfortunate reality is that the oversight is conducted by the police themselves and rarely hold officers responsible for egregious behavior or even negligence that would quickly put a normal citizen in jail.
Because of the special powers the police have, they must be held to a higher standard of performance, behavior, and be subject to necessary oversight.
We are kinda going off in another direction here!
I don't agree. I find the LEO on this forum do an excellent job of trying to educate people on the reality of LE work and I don't generally have an issue with vast majority of their comments. It's the tinfoilians I find who have drawn that line in the sand and no matter what LE says, it's rejected and debated and argued.
Perception. I would agree, the LEO do a great job in educating the people, on this board, about the reality of their jobs. Unfortunately, that reality should not be reality. As an example; Officer Safety does not, and should not, trump civil rights.
The shoot was good, the shoot was fully warranted, the owner set up the confrontation intentionally (and the LEOs took the bait) to get arrested and is (1) 100% responsible for the dogs death (2) a complete POS for #1.
I agree. The officer made every attempt, to my eye, to be non-combative with the animal. It looked to me like she shot it out of the air as it was attacking; The very last moment possible. I'm glad the dog was killed vs someone losing function in their hand. However, since when is filming a police encounter grounds for arrest? How is that "setting up the confrontation?"
Yes, some (per comments above) will watch exact same vid I did and conclude, through usual lens, it was all jack booted thug behavior on the side of LE.
I may be completely missing something, but, filming the police is not against the law. Was he arrested for breaking the law otherwise? What was he charged with?
LE are human beings, and they do fu&% on occasion to be sure, and should be held accountable. That's a given.
And they should not defend, manipulate and/or lie when they do. This incident shows that perfectly; Out of habbit, they went right into "Make up an excuse!" mode, which was not needed.
I however will start from a position of giving the LEO, or soldier, or other professional who puts their ass on the line the benefit of the doubt from the start.
I think other people would like to. It just gets harder and harder every day.
Personally, I think the mods already show more restraint than they should on that score.
That's my point; it's not about being sackless, so to speak. It's just not welcomed opinion. Around here, and many other places, respect for police officers is demanded, not earned. I think this is a large portion of why there is an issue to begin with.
This Government was not founded on the principle of anarchy, which is what you've confused as libertarianism.
With the rule of law comes Law Enforcement. If you don't understand that, I suggest you educate yourself on the legal system.
But lets not derail this thread.......
F'in pigs just killin ery thang yo....
Not to derail, but you bring up an interesting point.
From my own experience and research, I would consider myself very well versed on the subject. There is a distinct difference between the role of police and sheriffs/constables. Sheriffs were to serve as investigators and keepers of the peace, among other things, on an as-needed basis. Police serve to POLICE (hence the term) the people.
One role, the constable/sheriff, exists to serve as-needed. In other words, you don't need one until you've created a real situation that needs one then and there. Police, on the other hand, exist due to the assumption that there will always be crime and that there exists a need to police the populace to be ready for it. Again, that's literally where the terminology and differing names/roles came from.
Someone roaming around LOOKING for situations to enforce the law is much different than someone whose position is to enforce the law when situations arise that it needs to be enforced in. Only if you assume that there will be crime and that people need to be "watched" do you end up with a scenario needing police, which goes against the very principles that we were founded on. While you will find several examples in history of US Sheriffs, marshalls, and constables, you won't find a single instance of a police department until 1838 (nearly 80 years after we were functioning as a nation) because it was viewed in the very same light as outlined above.
I fully understand the difference, but I don't think you do.
So a Sheriff and Deputy's are not law enforcement(aka police)?
They are, but they serve in a different capacity. A sheriff's duties include law enforcement, along with a plethora of other duties (a sheriff is almost always the most powerful individual in any given county, in a legal aspect).
Sheriffs serve in a position of authority that includes enforcement of laws, but that is not their sole purpose. They do not police the people, but rather serve as needed, where needed, and usually do not actively POLICE the populace unless there is an active issue. Compare that to the relatively singular role of police to enforce laws and you'll see a stark contrast.
So, having a leashed dog out in public is unwise, negligent, unreasonable, or illegal? The owner actually appeared to be a responsible dog owner: the dog was leashed, appeared to be well-fed, clean, and he put the dog in the car of his own accord. I'm not seeing how any of that makes him a dumbass.
So, the owner was not allowed to have his leashed dog out in public (?), he did the right thing by putting the dog in the car, the police didn't have a legitimate reason to detain the owner, and the dog only lunged at the shooting officer when said officer reached for the dog; yet it's somehow the owner's fault the dog was shot? I'm just not tracking the logic. At all.
Like I said: The owner put the dog in the car of his own accord, but he failed to roll up the windows to ensure the dog didn't get out. Frankly he should have put the dog up BEFORE he started filming (if that was his car, why did he feel the need to have his dog with him in that highly-charged situation? He should have kept that dog up to start with or MOVED ON. I did not see the officer bait the dog, I saw the excited animal try to get to his master. The dog did what any dog would have done, I feel sorry for the animal.
didnt see if anyone has posted this yet, and i dont have the link yet but i believe the source is reliable.
the same officer that shot the k9 is also responsible for previously costing that department over 1 million in court for a case of excessive use of force....
pattern???
EDIT found the link
http://www.examiner.com/article/hawthorne-police-officer-who-killed-dog-has-a-past-charge-of-police-brutality
also how can they get away with saying filming a LEO on duty is a felony... still cant wrap my head around that...
I think the settlement check just got a lot bigger...
Regardless of which side of the argument anyone is on, I can't for the life of me see how anyone can watch that video and then say "Yep, all good. High-fives all around."
Someone roaming around LOOKING for situations to enforce the law is much different than someone whose position is to enforce the law when situations arise that it needs to be enforced in. .
So you are unaware that Sheriff Departments have PATROL?
Or do you think they sit on their thumbs all day until someone summons them to investigate?
I hope you're not that clueless. I'm beginning to think you're a sovereign citizen (aka loony).
Regardless of which side of the argument anyone is on, I can't for the life of me see how anyone can watch that video and then say "Yep, all good. High-fives all around."
Well it will be interesting to see what the real court decides. It's obviously dynamic in many regards. The actions of all the participants combined with the very important aspect of the animal / human relationship.
In my way of thinking you have to remember that the dog was "secure enough" for the man to speak to police. At the time they restrained him the dog became their responsibility and they had a civic duty to protect it. I would be interested to know if a call to animal control was made as they restrained him.
I don't think the court of M4C will ever convict anyone :laugh: not likely ever going to get 12 people to agree on anything.
So you are unaware that Sheriff Departments have PATROL?
Or do you think they sit on their thumbs all day until someone summons them to investigate?
I hope you're not that clueless. I'm beginning to think you're a sovereign citizen (aka loony).
Yes, I'm aware that they patrol. In fact one of their patrols helped me a few months back when I locked my keys in my house. That doesn't change the validity of my statement, that there is a clear difference between someone's role that involves some patrolling vs. someone who's entire purpose is to patrol.
I'm not sure where you live, but in the south and the midwest, there is most certainly a difference between sheriffs and police (anyone where I'm from can vouch for that). Sheriffs rarely EVER are out actually patrolling for the purpose of enforcement, unless there is a specific goal. Most sheriffs here won't even bother to pull a speeder over unless they're going 15+ over (as in, they don't go out of their way to enforce laws unless they're actively endangering someone). They are very much "peacekeeper" types, at least in the midwest/south.
Maybe it's a regional thing, maybe it's a midwest/southern thing, maybe it's just the attitude in all of the places I've lived (and I've lived in more places than most people), but there is CLEARLY a difference between the styles of the two here.
Police, even here, tend to behave more like the video, where they directly interject themselves into situations.
Go read up on the history and even the definitional roles of the two and you'll see that the two, while similar in some duties, are completely different in position and in the way they derive their power.
Hint: there's a reason Obama has been having the DOJ try to strip sheriffs of their arrest powers. There's also a reason that state and federal governments care a heck of a lot more about sheriff's opinions of not enforcing their laws. They have the authority to do so, police do not - police are limited to enforcing and policing.
Alaskapopo
07-03-13, 17:50
They are, but they serve in a different capacity. A sheriff's duties include law enforcement, along with a plethora of other duties (a sheriff is almost always the most powerful individual in any given county, in a legal aspect).
Sheriffs serve in a position of authority that includes enforcement of laws, but that is not their sole purpose. They do not police the people, but rather serve as needed, where needed, and usually do not actively POLICE the populace unless there is an active issue. Compare that to the relatively singular role of police to enforce laws and you'll see a stark contrast.
As I understand it Sheriffs department is just a county level enforcement arm, city cops patrol cities, state cops patrol the state and Sheriffs patrol the county. Minor differences here and there but that is their mission. We don't have them up here just state and local.
Pat
NCPatrolAR
07-03-13, 18:45
I think the settlement check just got a lot bigger...
Hardly
I'm not sure where you live, but in the south and the midwest, there is most certainly a difference between sheriffs and police (anyone where I'm from can vouch for that). Sheriffs rarely EVER are out actually patrolling for the purpose of enforcement, unless there is a specific goal. Most sheriffs here won't even bother to pull a speeder over unless they're going 15+ over (as in, they don't go out of their way to enforce laws unless they're actively endangering someone). They are very much "peacekeeper" types, at least in the midwest/south.
This varies from state-to-state and county-to-county. It's actually very common in rural areas in my AO for a sheriffs department to perform policing functions, especially in unincorporated areas.
Hardly
Well, that clears everything right up.
NCPatrolAR
07-03-13, 19:05
Well, that clears everything right up.
Sorry to burst your bubble. Being one of 7 officers named in an excessive force claim isnt going to influence the settlement, if there is one, when you have the entire incident caught on video and there's no sign of excessive force or misuse of force shown.
Hopefully the city will actually fight any suit instead of just settling out like far too many agencies do nowadays.
What laws did the man filming break?
I don't care about the dog.
Hopefully the city will actually fight any suit instead of just settling out like far too many agencies do nowadays.
Because spending a lot of money fighting a losing battle and allowing it to get into punitive damage awards is being fiscally responsible with taxpayer money.
NCPatrolAR
07-03-13, 19:30
Because spending a lot of money fighting a losing battle and allowing it to get into punitive damage awards is being fiscally responsible with taxpayer money.
Not all settlements are because of a losing battle. If more agencies would actually spend time fighting them you'd see less BS claims being filed.
NCPatrolAR
07-03-13, 19:31
What laws did the man filming break?
I don't care about the dog.
He was charged with a resist/obstruct/delay offense for refusing to turn the music in his car off while the officers were trying to get an armed robbery suspect out of a house just down the street from where the shooting happened.
Los Angeles Times article with some more info: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-dog-shot-hawthorne-police-20130702,0,2012165.story
Interesting twist: "Gulden told The Times that police were retaliating against Rosby for a lawsuit filed in March against the department, alleging excessive use of force and false imprisonment in a July 2012 incident.
...
Gulden said one of the officers at Sunday’s incident in Hawthorne had been on duty during Rosby’s alleged beating last year and recognized him as a 'troublemaker.'"
Voodoo_Man
07-03-13, 19:42
Los Angeles Times article with some more info: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-dog-shot-hawthorne-police-20130702,0,2012165.story
Interesting twist: "Gulden told The Times that police were retaliating against Rosby for a lawsuit filed in March against the department, alleging excessive use of force and false imprisonment in a July 2012 incident.
...
Gulden said one of the officers at Sunday’s incident in Hawthorne had been on duty during Rosby’s alleged beating last year and recognized him as a 'troublemaker.'"
Or maybe Gulden recognized the officer and decided to instigate.
“suspicion of obstructing justice.”
“It looks like the officer tried to reach down and grab the leash, and then the dog lunges in the direction of him and the other officers there,” Swain said. “And I know it’s the dog’s master, and more than likely not going to attack him, (but) we’ve got a guy handcuffed that’s kind of defenseless. We have a duty to defend him, too.”
… [Police spokesperson Scott] Swain said Rosby stopped in the intersection with music blaring from his windows. Officers told him to turn down the music because they were trying to hear what was happening down the street. Rosby pulled forward, parked and got out with his dog, but left the music still playing loudly.
“It’s distracting the officers,” Swain said. “It’s interfering with what they are able to hear. It’s not just a party call. It’s an armed robbery call. The officers need to hear what’s going on with the people being called out of the residence. That music in his car is bleeding over and it’s distracting them.”…
… Rosby, who pulled out his own cellphone to record the police activity, did not lower the volume.
“I do apologize if I didn’t immediately comply. The music may have been a little loud but I was complying,” Rosby said. “I said, ‘Sir, I want to make sure nobody’s civil rights were being violated.’ “…
… Once police arrested the suspected robber, officers motioned to Rosby and began walking toward him. Swain said they intended to arrest him and told him to put the dog in his car. He complied.
The video shows him putting the dog in the car, but leaving the windows open. Rosby said he walked toward officers, turned and put his hands behind his back, and waited for them to arrest him. The video shows the dog barking as officers took him into custody.
Suddenly, the 130-pound, 3-year-old dog jumped out of the car and ran at them.
He was charged with a resist/obstruct/delay offense for refusing to turn the music in his car off while the officers were trying to get an armed robbery suspect out of a house just down the street from where the shooting happened.
And the PD has history with that stand up citizen. He's got a screw loose. But, knowing the public being as dumb as they are, he'll be made a national hero and on Ellen in no time. :blink:
Or maybe Gulden recognized the officer and decided to instigate.
It's possible. Just as possible that they recognized him and decided to instigate. It would be interesting to see and hear the rest of the recording prior to what was shown.
Is that link posted above about the cop that shot having a prior history legit?
from that link...
The Hawthorne PD has issued a request for anyone who videotaped the shooting to turn over this evidence to be considered in dealing with these officers. Be very careful if you who recorded this decide to hand it over to the police. It's a felony in California to videotape police, punishable by up to 15 years in prison.
That can't be right is it? So it's a felony to videotape but they want your tapes. :confused: This sounds like the Onion or something.
It's possible. Just as possible that they recognized him and decided to instigate. It would be interesting to see and hear the rest of the recording prior to what was shown.
In an active crime scene with armed robbery suspect cornered, he parks his car, stands there and yells things like "why are there no black officers?!" and such, blasts music from car, walks up and down the block with the huge Rotty.
Yup, clearly the LEOs instigated that confrontation. :rolleyes:
It's a felony in California to videotape police, punishable by up to 15 years in prison.
Not true.
FlyingHunter
07-03-13, 20:15
He was charged with a resist/obstruct/delay offense for refusing to turn the music in his car off while the officers were trying to get an armed robbery suspect out of a house just down the street from where the shooting happened.
Trying to learn here...so if he was only filming and there was no music in the equation he would have been within his legal rights and they could not have detained/cuffed him?
NCPatrolAR
07-03-13, 20:22
Trying to learn here...so if he was only filming and there was no music in the equation he would have been within his legal rights and they could not have detained/cuffed him?
I'm guessing that he would have been left alone since there were other people filming and nothing was said to them.
My curiosity got the best of me and I watched, more listened actually, to the video again. At :28 someone off-camera says "he's still blasting music, they're gonna... [unintelligible]". Maybe there was some contact with the PD prior to the video that's being shown.
FlyingHunter
07-03-13, 20:39
I'm guessing that he would have been left alone since there were other people filming and nothing was said to them.
Thank you.
Still learning...
While I'm clear different jurisdictions may have different laws, as a general rule, it's not illegal to film law enforcement in the public domain, even when they are actively performing their duty as long as you are out of their way and not impeding or encroaching?
NCPatrolAR
07-03-13, 20:42
Thank you.
Still learning...
While I'm clear different jurisdictions may have different laws, as a general rule, it's not illegal to film law enforcement in the public domain, even when they are actively performing their duty as long as you are out of their way and not impeding or encroaching?
If there isnt a law against it then you can film to your heart's content as long as you arent getting in the way (which is missed by a lot of Jr film makers)
FlyingHunter
07-03-13, 20:49
If there isnt a law against it then you can film to your heart's content as long as you arent getting in the way (which is missed by a lot of Jr film makers)
Thanks -be safe
I'm a dog trainer. I train protection dogs and fix aggression problems. I grew up in that neighborhood, and still work there from time to time. I and everyone else who lives there, "know how it works" with the police.
It seems to me that the guy with the dog was asking to be confronted by the officers. Anyone in that neighborhood knows what the police will do and why. They know exactly how far they can push before they attract the sort of attention that they don't want. This guy was begging for a confrontation, and hoping it would be filmed. His body language tells the whole story. That being said, with him knowing the police would come over and confront him, he didn't think it far enough through to roll up the damn windows. He was certainly trying to annoy them, but I don't think he expected to be cuffed, frisked, and led away. He was expecting to argue with the cops, and what would happen to his dog if he were arrested was farther ahead than he had planned for or thought through. He should have: 1. Rolled the damn windows up. 2. Trained his dog to stay IN the car. 3. Trained a down stay on his dog, for the times the dog might take it upon itself to jump out an open window. 4. Not tried to intentionally piss off the cops while he was out with his dog. Take the dog home, and then come back and exercise all the civil disobedience and protest that you want.
Were the cops overzealous? Maybe. But everyone in that neighborhood knows EXACTLY how overzealous they are.
Should they have shot the dog? Yes. Absolutely. You can argue that they should not have detained/arrested the man, and you might even win that argument, but they DID choose to detain him. That man's dog was out of control and made more than one aggressive lunge at the officers. I think the officers showed tremendous restraint in NOT shooting the dog much sooner than they did, and they would have been totally justified if they had shot it sooner. At the last possible moment when the officer finally DID shoot, the dog was clearly in an aggressive lunge, mouth open, attempting to bite. Had the cop not shot, he would have some new holes and torn flesh, at the least. His shots were good and his aim was true, under extreme threat and pressure. It looks to me like the cop was trying to reach for the dogs collar and/or leash, when the dog made the decision to bite. I've seen many rotties do this. They are a dominant breed and they don't like strangers reaching for their collars. They seem to understand that control of the collar means control and dominance over them, and they are willing to fight to prevent it. Same with some mals and GSDs, but this is much more pronounced in rotts, in my experience.
Sad that we live in a society where things like this happen. Sad the cops had to tell this guy to turn down the music and shut up while they were helping society by arresting a true bad guy. (Sorry. "Alleged" bad guy, until proven guilty.) Sad that unacknowledged and unpunished police abuse and misconduct has created people that have the attitude of this dog owner. Sad that a good dog doing his duty had to die because of an ignorant owner that didn't train him properly and put him in a bad position.
Sorry fellas. The lunge that got the dog shot would have done some damage. The dog was a bit tentative at first, but was gaining confidence and escalating with each lunge. I have seen this many times in my career. If the dog had not been shot during that final lunge, there is no doubt in my mind that one or more humans would have been seriously injured.
We can all Monday morning quarterback this one forever. There are many points on both sides where this sad situation could have been avoided. There was ignorance, lack of situational awareness, and lack of fore thought on both sides. What the hell did this guy think his dog would do with an open window when the cops confronted him? What the hell did the cops think the dog would do with an open window when they grabbed and man-handled the dog owner? Obviously, neither party thought about it at all. In the end, it was self defense for the cops, and this man's dog is dead because he stupidly interjected him into this situation.
Ok let's replace the dog with a child and the loud music with a gun.
Criminal Richard Head is found with an illegal gun. The gun falls to the street in an effort to cuff Mr. Head. Three officers are controlling Mr. Head and each inadvertently forget to secure the gun when 6 year old SuzyQ emerges from the car and picks up the gun. Not sure what she has she begins to play cops and robbers. Points the gun in the direction of Mr. Head and the police officers. The camera cuts to a closeup of the trigger and her finger is pulling it rearward...
The video stops.
1. Shoot the girl to protect the criminal in custody?
-- Probably not, animals are not as valuable as people so obviously we can't compare that. At this point there is no choice but to shoot a dog though.
video starts again...
A shot is fired and hits police officer 1 in the thigh. The gun falls to the ground. Police officer 2 secures the gun.
Now ... whose fault is all that?
I say it's the fault of police for not securing the crime scene. Same with the dog. They didn't secure their crime scene. It was their crime scene on their terms with no resistance and they had per-determined to make this arrest before the approach.
I agree on the last lunge the dog was now ready to bite. Before that with the retreats I would not have thought so but take your word since that's what you do.
Ok let's replace the dog with a child and the loud music with a gun.
Criminal Richard Head is found with an illegal gun. The gun falls to the street in an effort to cuff Mr. Head. Three officers are controlling Mr. Head and each inadvertently forget to secure the gun when 6 year old SuzyQ emerges from the car and picks up the gun. Not sure what she has she begins to play cops and robbers. Points the gun in the direction of Mr. Head and the police officers. The camera cuts to a closeup of the trigger and her finger is pulling it rearward...
The video stops.
1. Shoot the girl to protect the criminal in custody?
-- Probably not, animals are not as valuable as people so obviously we can't compare that. At this point there is no choice but to shoot a dog though.
video starts again...
A shot is fired and hits police officer 1 in the thigh. The gun falls to the ground. Police officer 2 secures the gun.
Now ... whose fault is all that?
I say it's the fault of police for not securing the crime scene. Same with the dog. They didn't secure their crime scene. It was their crime scene on their terms with no resistance and they had per-determined to make this arrest before the approach.
There is a difference between Suzy and the dog. A big difference. Suzy is an innocent, ignorant child who is not going to intentionally try to hurt anyone. The dog is intentionally, willfully, knowingly trying to kill the people "attacking" its pack leader. It has the size, strength, means and wherewithal, to carry out its goal. Our dog is of a breed that was specifically bred to be uninhibited about biting people, and has demonstrated this lack of bite inhibition throughout its history. Mind you I love rotties, and all the other "guard" breeds too, but an innocent little girl who might accidentally hurt someone, is totally different than a 130 mature adult dog who is in the process of intentionally trying to hurt people and is totally out of anyone's control.
For the sake of argument, lets replace Suzy with a 15 year old kid from "the hood" who has a beef with the 5-0, and intentionally picks up that gun, points it at the cops and fully intends to empty the mag with murder and rage in his heart. Now we have a more even comparison, and I believe that officer would have acted the same, and been just as justified. That dog wasn't hapless and confused. He was purposefully trying to hurt the cops involved. It would only have escalated from there. You can see he wasn't a trained bite dog, but he was acting on instinct and "going for it".
Pepper spray might have worked, but then you have a pepper sprayed , angry, 130 pound dog running loose amongst the unarmed, defenseless public. It likely would have run over and attacked the first person it saw. I've seen that happen too. Displaced aggression. Somebody at some point was going to have to pick this dog up. With the exception of the owner, that somebody would very likely have been mauled.
The dog was out in public, loose, completely out of anyone's control (I could hear the dog's owner shouting at the dog, but the dog ignored him), and made the decision to attack. He had to be stopped. In the dog's mind, he was justified and doing what he was bred to do, and that is a very sad ending to a very brave dog, in my opinion.
Again, I wish the dog's owner OR the police, had de-escalated the situation at any point along the way, but they didn't, and in my opinion, this had to be done. If a guy in a bite suit, or a skilled ACO with a catch pole had been standing right there and instantly intervened, the dog might have been able to be spared, but short of that, quickly killing the dog was the safest course of action for all the people involved, including the bystanders across the street filming. Even uncuffing the guy and letting HIM grab his own dog, would have taken too long and resulted in someone being torn up.
This was a bad, gut wrenching deal, and I hope lessons are learned and it never happens again.
Now ... whose fault is all that?
I say it's the fault of police for not securing the crime scene. Same with the dog. They didn't secure their crime scene. It was their crime scene on their terms with no resistance and they had per-determined to make this arrest before the approach.
In your scenario, I have to agree with you. It is ultimately the responsibility of the police once they decided to interject themselves into this situation. They did fail to see this coming. But the dog owner, also failed to see his own arrest coming. We all agree that at many points along the way, this tragedy could have been prevented but at the point when the dog went for the officer, he was justified in shooting. Like any sane person, I wish it had never gotten to that point.
I would also still point out that if Suzy's parents had been more responsible and taught proper Eddie Eagle gun safety at home, then YOUR scenario would have ended better too.
My curiosity got the best of me and I watched, more listened actually, to the video again. At :28 someone off-camera says "he's still blasting music, they're gonna... [unintelligible]". Maybe there was some contact with the PD prior to the video that's being shown.
There was. The person who took the youtube video was focusing on the guy and talking about him because it was clear to everybody there that he was being a douche, that he was provoking the officers, and that he was not listening to them in regards to the music. He came up to an armed robbery scene and did everything he could to interfere with the police short of running up and starting a physical altercation.
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_23578147/hawthorne-police-kill-dog-during-arrest-owner
"As some, including resident Gabriel Martinez, aimed their cellphones at the scene to record it, Rosby drove up in his rented black Mazda. Swain said Rosby stopped in the intersection with music blaring from his windows. Officers told him to turn down the music because they were trying to hear what was happening down the street. Rosby pulled forward, parked and got out with his dog, but left the music still playing loudly."
""It's distracting the officers," Swain said. "It's interfering with what they are able to hear. It's not just a party call. It's an armed robbery call. The officers need to hear what's going on with the people being called out of the residence. That music in his car is bleeding over and it's distracting them."
Martinez said the Usher song "Tell Me Again" was looping over and over.
Rosby, who pulled out his own cellphone to record the police activity, did not lower the volume."
"A neighbor, who asked not to be identified, said the officers asked him to turn the music down, but he refused. Rosby, she said, responded, "It's my (expletive) radio!""
Just read the article, then watch the video and listen, and think critically. To me it is crystal clear the guy was being a douche and was going out of his way to interfere and make the officer's job difficult. He was clearly looking for a confrontation. He got it, and unfortunately for his dog he also failed to properly secure the dog. Probably his windows were down, allowing the dog to get out, because he had wanted to make sure that the music was nice and loud outside of the car.
NCPatrolAR
07-04-13, 07:02
I say it's the fault of police for not securing the crime scene. Same with the dog. They didn't secure their crime scene. It was their crime scene on their terms with no resistance and they had per-determined to make this arrest before the approach.
Negative. The suspect must be secured first prior to worrying about the "crime scene". In this case, the suspect hadn't been moved several feet from the point of his initial detention when the dog exited the vehicle. There hasn't been an opportunity to secure anything at point
NCPatrolAR
07-04-13, 07:40
Keep the thread on topic. Linking to other stories of dog shootings, police misconduct, or aliens in Uranus will be removed
Negative. The suspect must be secured first prior to worrying about the "crime scene". In this case, the suspect hadn't been moved several feet from the point of his initial detention when the dog exited the vehicle. There hasn't been an opportunity to secure anything at point
Actually according to the police statement the first thing they did was tell the guy to put the dog in the car. So apparently in their mind the dog was a first priority that got mis-handled per their instruction.
… Once police arrested the suspected robber, officers motioned to Rosby and began walking toward him. Swain said they intended to arrest him and told him to put the dog in his car. He complied.
NCPatrolAR
07-04-13, 07:55
Actually according to the police statement the first thing they did was tell the guy to put the dog in the car. So apparently in their mind the dog was a first priority that got mis-handled per their instruction.
… Once police arrested the suspected robber, officers motioned to Rosby and began walking toward him. Swain said they intended to arrest him and told him to put the dog in his car. He complied.
They likely told him to put the dog in the car so they wouldnt be but when arresting the owner. That's generally the way we handle people with dogs. And securing of the dog doesn't have anything to do with crime scene preservation.
Just read the article, then watch the video and listen, and think critically.
It is clear the guy was an idiot. That's a given.
Police: put your dog in car. That statement proves beyond any doubt they understood the danger of that dog.
Idiot: Puts dog in car
As the Idiot walked back around the end of the car and headed toward police.... I believe the police should have said STOP!! go back and secure the dog. Roll the windows up, if the dog comes out of that car we will have to shoot it.
To me that is the critical point of failure in this scenario.
An instruction was given. The instruction was followed. The instruction was incomplete and insufficient for the potential danger of the dog. At the same time, there was no present danger to prevent them from issuing additional instructions..... but they did not do so.
They had knowledge, time, means and expectation of cooperation based on prior acts to issue additional securing instructions and did not do so. So they basically own it from there.
With all due respect, we don't know all the fine details and this is monday quarterbacking at its finest...
Littlelebowski
07-04-13, 08:44
With all due respect, we don't know all the fine details and this is monday quarterbacking at its finest...
It always is, no matter what when it comes to this sort of thing. I don't think they needed to arrest the guy, I do think the guy could have avoided the situation, and I do think the dog was attacking. However, the entire situation was easily avoidable by both sides and no matter how good the shoot, the Hawthorne PD just embarrassed themselves with the arrest and the laughable excuse of "protecting the owner" when the dog was clearly going for the officer that shot it.
This is as clear a case of BOTH parties exercising their "rights".
Just because you perceive you "have the right" to do something does not mean its prudent to do so.
Dog owner could have shut off his music and filmed with (I hope; one cannot be too damned sure nowadays) little reaction from the police.
Dog could have been secured, as stated.
Cops could have approached dog owner, tell him to turn his godd&mned radio off or they would arrest him, call for backup and continue their perimeter duties.
We all learn... eventually.
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
Littlelebowski
07-04-13, 09:05
This is as clear a case of BOTH parties exercising their "rights".
Just because you perceive you "have the right" to do something does not mean its prudent to do so.
Dog owner could have shut off his music and filmed with (I hope; one cannot be too damned sure nowadays) little reaction from the police.
Dog could have been secured, as stated.
Cops could have approached dog owner, tell him to turn his godd&mned radio off or they would arrest him, call for backup and continue their perimeter duties.
We all learn... eventually.
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
Well said!
And securing of the dog doesn't have anything to do with crime scene preservation.
Right, I'm probably using the wrong term. I'm not speaking of preservation but simply making safe. Due diligence. Care of persons and personal property, that sort of thing.
I think we are talking about two different things. So let me replace "crime scene" with "location where police have rightfully assumed a position of authority and are instructing citizens"
Refer to the little girl hostage last week.
The authorities secured the scene prior to shooting the kidnapper. They got all the people out of the way. Using good judgement and close observation of the suspect and "scene" they made everything as safe as possible -before- the critical moment of no return / restraint. That was handled brilliantly.
So comparing the two.. kidnapping good shoot, dog bad shoot. OR... great shoot vs justifiable CF shoot. "shoot" meaning the entire scenario from intervention to death.
Eurodriver
07-04-13, 09:52
It always is, no matter what when it comes to this sort of thing. I don't think they needed to arrest the guy, I do think the guy could have avoided the situation, and I do think the dog was attacking. However, the entire situation was easily avoidable by both sides and no matter how good the shoot, the Hawthorne PD just embarrassed themselves with the arrest and the laughable excuse of "protecting the owner" when the dog was clearly going for the officer that shot it.
This is exactly how I feel and is how I've felt from the very beginning.
LEOs will look at the vid and say "Our training says they did the right thing"
The rest of the country is looking at it going "What a bunch of assholes".
(This is completely ignoring the arrest, which was BS at best)
If there is one thing I didn't like about the Marine Corps it was the constant shit about "Being a Marine 24/7" and "You represent the Corps". I hated that I always had to be professional and couldn't do what everyone else did like walk and talk on a cell phone, put my hands in my pockets, treat detainees with respect etc. Some of it was overboard but I get it now. As a Marine, you are always aware that there is a dickhead soldier, politician, or a hippy just itching for you to **** up so he can say "See? I told you Marines are retarded/assholes/baby killers"
I wish more police had the same mentality. But from what I've seen, some just don't give a **** what people think. Some just fail to recognize that it not only makes their job more difficult, it makes their job more dangerous.
Some just fail to recognize that it not only makes their job more difficult, it makes their job more dangerous.
Exactly... this also reminds me of a scenario in the Gonzales book.
http://deepsurvival.com/
The mountain climber will reach the peak and celebrate having only reached 50% of his goal. Then dies on the descent.
These guys had just reached the summit by capturing the armed robber... the "dangerous" part. ...In fact their casually strolling up to that "simple" scenario of the guy with the dog was probably more dangerous.
They relaxed their professionalism. Not in appearance or even in action of arrest, but in reasoning. They left their best professional reasoning at the summit and only took their relaxed reasoning on the descent. Or rather I would suggest this may have happened.
I doubt anyone will allow them to discuss that potential for fear of law suits, job loss, etc..
Certainly there had to be a sense of security(police all over the place), job well done(caught armed robber), we're all safe(no one killed), let's pick up the trash before we leave(let's go deal with Mr. Music and get out of here ).
I think the secondary situation they were involved in did not register in their minds with the gravity it should have due to the impact the prior situation had on them in comparison.
Arresting that guy and killing that dog took away, it did not add. And the excuse the police dept put out about killing the dog for the safety of the owner is not something I could say with a straight face.
Imagine if they had ignored the citizen with the dog on the leash and the camera. This dept wouldn't be national news. Instead, they doubled down on stupidity with that laughably moronic public statement.
This.
This is as clear a case of BOTH parties exercising their "rights".
Just because you perceive you "have the right" to do something does not mean its prudent to do so.
Dog owner could have shut off his music and filmed with (I hope; one cannot be too damned sure nowadays) little reaction from the police.
Dog could have been secured, as stated.
Cops could have approached dog owner, tell him to turn his godd&mned radio off or they would arrest him, call for backup and continue their perimeter duties.
We all learn... eventually.
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
Did you read the article I linked?
Did you see that they had previously told him to turn it down, he refused, saying it was "my [expletive] radio", then parked with his windows down and the song on loop?
Did you see that after being told to turn the music down, driving up, and parking, he yelled at the police, with such comments/questions about having more black police officers?
Did you notice how many other people there were filming the incident without so much as a second look from any of the officers? Do you really think the filming was a problem?
NCPatrolAR
07-04-13, 12:48
Right, I'm probably using the wrong term. I'm not speaking of preservation but simply making safe. Due diligence. Care of persons and personal property, that sort of thing.
It can be easily said that by telling the guy to put his dog in the vehicle that "due diligence" was met. If they had try to arrest the guy with the dog outside of the car then there might be a case where that threshold wasnt met.
NCPatrolAR
07-04-13, 12:53
I don't think they needed to arrest the guy,
Once he gave them the "F you" by not turning the music down and continuing to run his mouth they were more than right to hook him up. The guy wanted attention and certainly got it. Even he was surprised that he was arrested.
Littlelebowski
07-04-13, 12:58
Once he gave them the "F you" by not turning the music down and continuing to run his mouth they were more than right to hook him up. The guy wanted attention and certainly got it. Even he was surprised that he was arrested.
So you're saying it was a need rather than say, "justifiable and expected."
They are, but they serve in a different capacity. A sheriff's duties include law enforcement, along with a plethora of other duties (a sheriff is almost always the most powerful individual in any given county, in a legal aspect).
Sheriffs serve in a position of authority that includes enforcement of laws, but that is not their sole purpose. They do not police the people, but rather serve as needed, where needed, and usually do not actively POLICE the populace unless there is an active issue. Compare that to the relatively singular role of police to enforce laws and you'll see a stark contrast.
I'm not sure that the distinction you are trying to make exists.
A Police Force is usually tasked with upholding public order, detecting and preventing crimes, protecting the public (at least for us) and so forth. Completing these tasks without being pro-active is a bit difficult.
Our police force is unarmed as a general rule, but will arm themselves if the situation dictates it (they have handguns secured in the police car). If this situation had happened in here, with a guy actively provoking the police, and failing to comply with commands given by police, he would have been arrested as well. Paragraph 5 of our Police Law provides that authority.
Did you read the article I linked?
Did you see that they had previously told him to turn it down, he refused, saying it was "my [expletive] radio", then parked with his windows down and the song on loop?
Did you see that after being told to turn the music down, driving up, and parking, he yelled at the police, with such comments/questions about having more black police officers?
Did you notice how many other people there were filming the incident without so much as a second look from any of the officers? Do you really think the filming was a problem?
Anything in the fact patterns that does not support the pre existing bias of "jack booted thugs" will generally be overlooked and ignored. You should know that by now! :D
Anything in the fact patterns that does not support the pre existing bias of "jack booted thugs" will generally be overlooked and ignored. You should know that by now! :D
You should see the 20 page thread about it that I'm in over on that one sight you don't post at much right now. (at least not in the mfc). Heck, I already got a neg comment hoping that I get killed by a cop shooting at a dog from one of them.
NCPatrolAR
07-04-13, 13:26
So you're saying it was a need rather than say, "justifiable and expected."
It doesnt matter if the primary incident the police were dealing with is over. If he was purposefully interfering with the police (and by all accounts he was) then he needed to be arrested. I think it was smart that the officers put up with it until the robbery suspect was taken out of the home.
A Police Force is usually tasked with upholding public order, detecting and preventing crimes, protecting the public (at least for us) and so forth. Completing these tasks without being pro-active is a bit difficult.
That's my very point - police are based on the assumption that people will do evil. Further, they MUST interject themselves for their roles to be valid - that's all they can do, by definition.
Sheriffs and their deputies would still be necessary even if we did away with patrolling, traffic stops, law enforcement, etc. A sheriff's role is the top legal authority figure within a county. This is why a sheriff can sign off on your SBR or suppressor forms, this is why a sheriff can choose to not enforce a law, they can serve in legal capacities in a court. In some counties and cities, they even serve over EMS services.
A sheriff's duty is a truly an administrative role that INCLUDES law enforcement, but is not limited to that. Police simply serve to find people doing wrong (as you pointed out above), which goes against the entire premise of freedom and, at it's core, the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" ("we must catch them doing wrong", which is based on the thought people WILL do something wrong).
We didn't have our first police department until 1838. Why? Because Boston decided they wanted to reduce crime by creating the ability to stop it before it happened. The creation of police (again, please look up the definition of the word) was a 180* shift from the legal and constitutional precedent up until that point.
I'm in no way bashing law enforcement, but the truth is that many people don't know the difference between law enforcement and policing. The first is constitutional, the second is a huge step down a slippery slope towards a police state, because it gives the government the ability to proactively and preemptively look into people's lives. It's based on the root assumption that people will commit more crime if not policed.
Littlelebowski
07-04-13, 14:13
It doesnt matter if the primary incident the police were dealing with is over. If he was purposefully interfering with the police (and by all accounts he was) then he needed to be arrested. I think it was smart that the officers put up with it until the robbery suspect was taken out of the home.
Do you think they were being interfered with to the extent that they could not perform their duties or rather.....annoyed into reacting?
NCPatrolAR
07-04-13, 14:25
Do you think they were being interfered with to the extent that they could not perform their duties or rather.....annoyed into reacting?
I have no idea. I wasnt there and havent talked to anyone that was
It's based on the root assumption that people will commit more crime if not policed.
People -will- commit more crime if not policed. The Interstate is a prime example. Assumptions are no longer necessary. We have historical and current data.
That's my very point - police are based on the assumption that people will do evil. Further, they MUST interject themselves for their roles to be valid - that's all they can do, by definition.
Sheriffs and their deputies would still be necessary even if we did away with patrolling, traffic stops, law enforcement, etc. A sheriff's role is the top legal authority figure within a county. This is why a sheriff can sign off on your SBR or suppressor forms, this is why a sheriff can choose to not enforce a law, they can serve in legal capacities in a court. In some counties and cities, they even serve over EMS services.
A sheriff's duty is a truly an administrative role that INCLUDES law enforcement, but is not limited to that. Police simply serve to find people doing wrong (as you pointed out above), which goes against the entire premise of freedom and, at it's core, the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" ("we must catch them doing wrong", which is based on the thought people WILL do something wrong).
We didn't have our first police department until 1838. Why? Because Boston decided they wanted to reduce crime by creating the ability to stop it before it happened. The creation of police (again, please look up the definition of the word) was a 180* shift from the legal and constitutional precedent up until that point.
I'm in no way bashing law enforcement, but the truth is that many people don't know the difference between law enforcement and policing. The first is constitutional, the second is a huge step down a slippery slope towards a police state, because it gives the government the ability to proactively and preemptively look into people's lives. It's based on the root assumption that people will commit more crime if not policed.
I'm confused about how this relates to the topic at hand.
It seems that the police responded to an armed robbery call? Is that not reactionary/law enforcement?
And did this individual not choose to interject himself into the situation, knowingly and willingly choosing to be disruptive/obstructive? For no apparent reason than because he wanted to be so?
People -will- commit more crime if not policed. The Interstate is a prime example. Assumptions are no longer necessary. We have historical and current data.
There's your flaw (emphasis added), and the flaw with police states in general. The only data that history shows is that crime happens REGARDLESS of policing (otherwise, gun control would work). The amount of crime has nothing to do with the amount of police (several towns, my own included, have zero, yet have less crime than major cities), it has to do with the morality of the people. Policing doesn't stop crime, it simply creates a more specialized market for it. In fact, the very definition of "police" is concerned with catching crime in action, therefore by subsequent definition, policing can NEVER stop crime, only catch it in progress, after it's being committed.
The criminals don't care about the law, so what effect will policing have? You're arguing, literally, the very things that the founders fought so adamantly against.
Do you think they were being interfered with to the extent that they could not perform their duties or rather.....annoyed into reacting?
Unless proven otherwise, I'm going with the latter. If he had already been asked by another officer to turn down the radio, told them to piss off, and was interfering with what was going on, I would like to think that he'd have been arrested right then. It's more than a little suspicious that it wasn't until he started spouting off about no black cops being there and that one of the officers is a named defendant in a pending civil case involving this guy that they decided he needed to be arrested.
Unless proven otherwise, I'm going with the latter. .
Unless proven otherwise, I'm going with the former. I give the LE on the scene the benefit of the doubt.
Unless proven otherwise, I'm going with the former. I give the LE on the scene the benefit of the doubt.
As do I, as do the courts, and that is precisely why they are to held to a higher standard in their actions and when things go south due to their inattention they must be held responsible.
That is exactly why I say they own this one.
I'm not going to comment on the officers decisions - it was his call and his call alone.
But here's my .02 on the situation - and I see it every day that I work the streets.
This guy came to the cops. The cops didn't come to him. (Yeah they walked up on him, but I would argue that he was encroaching on their secured area) There were people across the street (filming) commenting on him walking up, closer and closer, continually testing the boundaries and seeing what would fly and what wouldn't.
Furthermore, the cops didn't come to his house and shoot his dog. He brought himself and his unsecured dog too. The dog did what a dog does. The guy on the other hand passively resisted (yes that's resisting) You don't have to punch me in the face to resist arrest. Simply tensing up your arms and arguing can easily be articulated as resisting. Which, it seems like this guy did. When he did so, he created a hostile environment, one that his dog acted on.
Any cop I know that has a shot a dog (owns a dog too) didn't want to. I, and many others in the LE community and Military for that matter have a mentality, I'm coming home in the exact same condition I left. No stitches, broken bones, etc. I personally wouldn't want to wrestle with an angry Rot.
Is it a terrible situation - hell yes... but could it have been easily avoidable.... OF COURSE. Said man w/ said dog could have gotten in his car and left the area. But - he chose to stay.
As do I, as do the courts, and that is precisely why they are to held to a higher standard in their actions and when things go south due to their inattention they must be held responsible.
That is exactly why I say they own this one.
And exactly why I say the owner of the dog "owns" this one and every bit of evidence I have seen or read confirms it.
How it can be viewed any other way is beyond me, but that's what makes horse racing as they say.
There's your flaw (emphasis added), and the flaw with police states in general. The only data that history shows is that crime happens REGARDLESS of policing (otherwise, gun control would work). The amount of crime has nothing to do with the amount of police (several towns, my own included, have zero, yet have less crime than major cities), it has to do with the morality of the people. Policing doesn't stop crime, it simply creates a more specialized market for it. In fact, the very definition of "police" is concerned with catching crime in action, therefore by subsequent definition, policing can NEVER stop crime, only catch it in progress, after it's being committed.
The criminals don't care about the law, so what effect will policing have? You're arguing, literally, the very things that the founders fought so adamantly against.
1st Bold - No this is wrong. Data is gathered in a variety of manner. Broken down into region, type, frequency, stimuli, and all manner of other points of interest.
2ndBold - Not always, morality for sure , but incompetence, misunderstanding, lack of attention, etc all are factors as well. Poor judgement, duress, it's pretty well endless as to why a crime might be committed.
3rd Bold - always, never, can't, must, it's hard to reason when you restrict your argument to those criteria which are seldom true in real life..,,, here I'll just give you a quick one.
There is a 4th of July celebration with a band. the towns people have voted to have no music after 9:30 and no people on the grounds after 10:00. It would be a crime to violate either of those. without Police present it is quite likely the band might play until 9:45 It is then quite possible that the people might linger past 10:00 meaning they all would be law breakers. Breaking the very laws they made.
However you put a Police team in to facilitate the speedy and orderly exit of the people and the police have now ---prevented--- multiple crimes. No one was doing anything immoral. In this way they have --served-- the public. They made no assumptions. In fact they followed the guidance of the towns people.
....and... when one of them sees the guy that had too much to drink and says sir, be sure to let someone else drive or you risk getting pulled over or into an accident when you hit the main road. Again... a prevented broken law or three. Possibly even lives saved.
You're arguing, literally, the very things that the founders fought so adamantly against.
No, you are defining real life as a set of absolutes. The fact that you live in a one horse town is not suited to every situation, or most for that matter.
Proper policing is an advantage to society. Obviously improper policing is a detriment.
And exactly why I say the owner of the dog "owns" this one and every bit of evidence I have seen or read confirms it.
How it can be viewed any other way is beyond me, but that's what makes horse racing as they say.
In the realm of all you have read and seen. what instant in time do you associate with him putting the dogs life in danger and thus must accept responsibility for it's death.
In the realm of all you have read and seen. what instant in time do you associate with him putting the dogs life in danger and thus must accept responsibility for it's death.
Read my prior comments. Not going to repeat myself in the thread and there's nothing I can add that I, and others, have said on the matter that would change your mind clearly. As i said, how you or anyone else could see it otherwise is a mystery to me.
.....and there's nothing I can add that I, and others, have said on the matter that would change your mind clearly.
Except for the fact bulletdog already changed my mind by his addition.
As i said, how you or anyone else could see it otherwise is a mystery to me.
Hung jury. ;)
Littlelebowski
07-04-13, 18:19
I have no idea. I wasnt there and havent talked to anyone that was
Do you think Hawthorne PD would have been better off not dealing with this nationwide shitstorm?
NCPatrolAR
07-04-13, 19:22
Do you think Hawthorne PD would have been better off not dealing with this nationwide shitstorm?
Dealing with shitstorms is the price of being in this profession.
Littlelebowski
07-04-13, 19:27
Dealing with shitstorms is the price of being in this profession.
So you do or do not think they would have been better off not dealing with this debacle? I do understand about the shitstorms and that some are unavoidable.
Funny story, one of my co-workers got bit last night by a german shepherd........
to the surprise of all m4c members, the dog wasn't shot...it was however taken to the pound.
Littlelebowski
07-04-13, 20:26
Funny story, one of my co-workers got bit last night by a german shepherd........
to the surprise of all m4c members, the dog wasn't shot...it was however taken to the pound.
Not surprised, given your AO.
Unless proven otherwise, I'm going with the latter. If he had already been asked by another officer to turn down the radio, told them to piss off, and was interfering with what was going on, I would like to think that he'd have been arrested right then. It's more than a little suspicious that it wasn't until he started spouting off about no black cops being there and that one of the officers is a named defendant in a pending civil case involving this guy that they decided he needed to be arrested.
Is it possible that the armed robbery situation reached a point where the officers were no longer needed to remain as focused as possible on said situation?
Did the man get closer and closer, while acting in a more and more confrontational manner, as time went on?
Is it possible that the armed robbery situation reached a point where the officers were no longer needed to remain as focused as possible on said situation?
If so, then it's going to be more difficult to maintain that he was obstructing them.
Did the man get closer and closer, while acting in a more and more confrontational manner, as time went on?
From what I could tell, he was behind the line the whole time. If you're asking if, or implying that, he was creeping up on them, no he was not.
If so, then it's going to be more difficult to maintain that he was obstructing them.
[/QUOTE]
This might just be my ignorance, but is obstruction something you can't be arrested for 2 minutes after it was committed?
Does obstruction cease to be obstruction because officers become available to deal with you that were previously disposed?
Different camera angle of shooting.
WARNING
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF7zWHZZ0FQ
This is more like the behavior I am used to seeing in a dog attacking.
WARNING
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2PKS-IJblc
At 07:57 of this video the chief of police tells us why he was arrested.(kinda)
http://bcove.me/mo4fuzsr
"His overt physical actions, coupled in many ways that are obvious to their(there)( ? ) ah, to the video, are the exact uh characteristics in uh factors that went in to his subsequent( ? ) arrest.
Did you read the article I linked?
Did you see that they had previously told him to turn it down, he refused, saying it was "my [expletive] radio", then parked with his windows down and the song on loop?
Did you see that after being told to turn the music down, driving up, and parking, he yelled at the police, with such comments/questions about having more black police officers?
Did you notice how many other people there were filming the incident without so much as a second look from any of the officers? Do you really think the filming was a problem?
Don't assume everyone reads every single post. Including every link.
Did u read MY post? For content? Without assuming I give a damn either way? Are you sure about that? Well, after re-reading it (if you care to) and still feel the way you do PM me.
Your last sentence: was filming a problem.
There were PLENTY of problems. Filming some officers doing their job HAS been an issue recently so, no, I'd not rule that out as just one of many issues.
Both parties exercised "rights" they perceived they had: real or imagined. Both parties could have done something differently. End of story. They deserve o another. Unfortunately, a dog died.
And I believe one poster stated that it happened in his neighborhood and has insinuated "issues" with the police there. So take it for what you feel it's worth.
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
Don't assume everyone reads every single post. Including every link.
Did u read MY post? For content? Without assuming I give a damn either way? Are you sure about that? Well, after re-reading it (if you care to) and still feel the way you do PM me.
Your last sentence: was filming a problem.
There were PLENTY of problems. Filming some officers doing their job HAS been an issue recently so, no, I'd not rule that out as just one of many issues.
Both parties exercised "rights" they perceived they had: real or imagined. Both parties could have done something differently. End of story. They deserve o another. Unfortunately, a dog died.
And I believe one poster stated that it happened in his neighborhood and has insinuated "issues" with the police there. So take it for what you feel it's worth.
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
I didn't assume...that's why I asked.
Here it is:
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_23578147/hawthorne-police-kill-dog-during-arrest-owner
SWATcop556
07-04-13, 23:15
The ONLY thing I see wrong with how this went down is the bullshit response from the PR dept stating they were protecting the owner. Nothing wrong with saying your officer protected himself against an aggressive dog. I'm good with the arrest and the shooting. The PR rep needs a new job.
At 07:57 of this video the chief of police tells us why he was arrested.(kinda)
http://bcove.me/mo4fuzsr
Wait, so the chief says 'trust us, there's a thorough investigation underway' while also saying everything was good?
And why did he give an amateurish interview to some yahoo instead of a press conference with local media? (That was a rhetorical question, by the way)
Yeah, protecting the OWNER from HIS OWN dog... :rolleyes:
Why not tell the truth: we didn't wish to be bitten?
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
Wait, so the chief says 'trust us, there's a thorough investigation underway' while also saying everything was good?
Yes, that's phase 1. Now he needs to invite the officers over for a beer.
What's funny is right after he says why he was arrested he goes into accountability being a "monster". I'd like to hear those first two officers account for being nearly oblivious to this big ass barking dog when their own chief states the dog was a key factor in the man being arrested. I still want to know if a call to animal control was made. I would do if it were me. You are talking to your fellow officer. Ok, let's go arrest him,,, ok, we are going to need animal control for the dog, no problem I'll call it in.... that just seems like somebody had to have thought of that....... otherwise it sort of suggests they didn't arrest him for the dog. ....
IMO, the police really should STFU if for no other reason than to protect the guys on the street.
The third cop intended to shoot the dog from the instant it came out of the car. That is clear. Granted he had a right to have that instant reaction. The method he went about killing it suggests he went back and forth between kill and hold at gun point and ultimately unwisely closed the gap on it, almost getting himself bit, resulting in having to follow through with his initial decision to kill.
I can't believe there are only two camera angles on YT to be easily found. There was another guy taping just to the left. I can't believe he didn't tape that part as well. Then again, I guess he and the other guy standing there had to run since the police were firing/aiming pretty much in their direction.
-----------------
“You’d like to believe that maybe some of the people are just venting, but then you’ve got to be realistic. There are crazy people out there,” Swain said.
That may be true Mr. Swain, but when those crazy people are threatening to kill your co-workers, it's probably a good idea to just keep that thought to yourself.
I hear Swain has an idea for a new slogan for the cars.
To Protect and Serve... Even You Crazy People
1st Bold - No this is wrong. Data is gathered in a variety of manner. Broken down into region, type, frequency, stimuli, and all manner of other points of interest.
Profiling. It's trying to make a connection, even when there might not be one. Want to know the 100% common denominator? Morality. An immoral people will commit crime - magically having police won't fix crime. You do realize that your argument is supporting gun control, correct? That policing would make gun control effective because policing reduces crime. But I digress.
2ndBold - Not always, morality for sure , but incompetence, misunderstanding, lack of attention, etc all are factors as well. Poor judgement, duress, it's pretty well endless as to why a crime might be committed.
Morality covers all of those. If no person had anything but good intentions, then there would truly be no intentional crimes. You can subcategorize all of the crimes that stem from it, but they all still fall under morality. There are "crimes" that are accidental, but most all of those are irrelevant. If you're stating that a police department would still be necessary to convict people who committed crimes they didn't mean to (such as accidentally injuring someone else), you might realize the reason why policing doesn't work. It actively assumes people will break the law and punishes those that fit that profile, even if no one does.
3rd Bold - always, never, can't, must, it's hard to reason when you restrict your argument to those criteria which are seldom true in real life..,,, here I'll just give you a quick one.
There is a 4th of July celebration with a band. the towns people have voted to have no music after 9:30 and no people on the grounds after 10:00. It would be a crime to violate either of those. without Police present it is quite likely the band might play until 9:45 It is then quite possible that the people might linger past 10:00 meaning they all would be law breakers. Breaking the very laws they made.
However you put a Police team in to facilitate the speedy and orderly exit of the people and the police have now ---prevented--- multiple crimes. No one was doing anything immoral. In this way they have --served-- the public. They made no assumptions. In fact they followed the guidance of the towns people.
....and... when one of them sees the guy that had too much to drink and says sir, be sure to let someone else drive or you risk getting pulled over or into an accident when you hit the main road. Again... a prevented broken law or three. Possibly even lives saved.
No, you are defining real life as a set of absolutes. The fact that you live in a one horse town is not suited to every situation, or most for that matter.
Proper policing is an advantage to society. Obviously improper policing is a detriment.
You're missing the underlying, fundamental ideaology: A sheriff's department can assume ALL of those responsibilities. The difference is that once those responsibilities are over, they resume other, non-policing duties. Police, once again, CANNOT ever do ANYTHING but police - that is the clear distinction and role that makes them police.
What you've done by creating police is creating an organization that MUST police the people 24/7. That is where the term police state comes from, because it's active and ongoing. Sheriff's departments can provide all of the resources that a police department can, but because they are not tasked with policing as their duty and because they have other duties, they do not result in prolonged policing activities.
This is what makes the police role inherently unconstitutional, it's a maintenance of force tasked with finding people doing wrong, even if there aren't any. Speed ticket quotas, bonuses for catching X number of violators - these all assume there is a MINIMUM number of violators. It truly violates the core of freedom, as it assumes "X number of people will ALWAYS be bad."
Study your history. This is nothing new to the US, it's the inherent evil of government. Why do you think a police state is called a police state? It's the root principle, not the severity of it.
The ONLY thing I see wrong with how this went down is the bullshit response from the PR dept stating they were protecting the owner. Nothing wrong with saying your officer protected himself against an aggressive dog. I'm good with the arrest and the shooting. The PR rep needs a new job.
Sums it up for me. Thanx :cool:
Study your history.
Study your reality.
I'm good with the arrest
I was actually ok with the legality of the arrest until I listened to the Chief explain it and his supporting "evidence" ( again prior to two ongoing investigations ).
The ONLY thing I see wrong with how this went down is the bullshit response from the PR dept stating they were protecting the owner. Nothing wrong with saying your officer protected himself against an aggressive dog. I'm good with the arrest and the shooting. The PR rep needs a new job.
Exactly!
It is sad to see so many people here trying to make a storm in teacup.
So you do or do not think they would have been better off not dealing with this debacle? I do understand about the shitstorms and that some are unavoidable.
It's been my experience that it's pretty rare to find anyone at street level who ever thinks about a bigger picture; whether they be police, military, or corporate. And when you do find that rare person, you get them into a position where they can hopefully instill that quality into others.
It's been my experience that it's pretty rare to find anyone at street level who ever thinks about a bigger picture; whether they be police, military, or corporate. And when you do find that rare person, you get them into a position where they can hopefully instill that quality into others.
The only big picture thought at the moment that dog attacked was placing rnds to stop the threat. That's the only thought I'd expect from the LEO at that moment.
Yes, I know many people (not directed at you per se) would prefer to see the LEO have some body part mangled to "justify" the shoot, but that's not how it works, nor should it.
The only big picture thought at the moment that dog attacked was placing rnds to stop the threat. That's the only thought I'd expect from the LEO at that moment.
Yes, I know many people (not directed at you per se) would prefer to see the LEO have some body part mangled to "justify" the shoot, but that's not how it works, nor should it.
The LAST thing one would want is a large assed dog "ripping one a new one."
Cannot have that. Mere damage, tissue damage... No thanks.
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
The only big picture thought at the moment that dog attacked was placing rnds to stop the threat. That's the only thought I'd expect from the LEO at that moment.
Yes, I know many people (not directed at you per se) would prefer to see the LEO have some body part mangled to "justify" the shoot, but that's not how it works, nor should it.
Now this we agree on! Unfortunately the "big picture at the moment" was simply a "crop" of the truly "Big Picture".
For instance even the video we have seen is a "crop" of what really happened. If you were making a movie, that "big picture at the moment" you describe would actually be a "cut". It would be but a single scene in the Big Picture.
The shower scene in Psycho is not the "Big Picture" but it's a "big picture at the moment".
Jack Nicholson and his ax "Here's Johnny!" ... "big picture at the moment"
But as Paul Harvey always said.... there's "The Rest of the Story"
I would LOVE to see every every person involved in this from chief on down to those three, the guy with the dog, his lawyer..... i would LOVE to say ok no matter what anyone says there will be no harm no foul. BUT... everyone has to submit to exhaustive lie detection tests as it pertains to that event.
I would really love to hear the Big Picture as it truly occurred.
The only big picture thought at the moment that dog attacked was placing rnds to stop the threat. That's the only thought I'd expect from the LEO at that moment.
True, but the "big picture moment" had already passed by that point. In my estimation, that moment was the decision to engage Rosby rather than just letting him be on the perimeter, being a jackass.
A panoramic view of the bigger (potential) picture would have been to recognize that he was baiting them, not posing a threat that required a take-down, and not take the bait. A more narrow, tactical view would have been to stay switched-on to the presence of the dog instead of thinking with the handcuffs. Instead, they allowed themselves to be suckered into a confrontation that has landed them, the department, and the city in the middle of what's turning into a major boondoggle.
The quote of you above touches on a topic that I deal with a lot. It's not a dig at you in any way but, it does illustrate the phenomenon. Focusing the topic on the moment when the dog was shot would be an example of "muzzle-forward thinking". I see this a lot with tactical-types. They have a hard time seeing beyond the muzzle of their weapon, figuratively speaking. Another related saying is "to a hammer, everything looks like a nail". While it may have been a good shoot (subject to much debate), the bigger question is how and why did it come down to a shooting? In my observation it came down to a shooting because they focused too narrowly on the handcuffs and when things got away from them they were left with one response: 'hammer, meet nail'. There were at least two opportunities to alter the course and both were either missed or ignored. That whole incident should never have ended in a shooting.
In my estimation, that moment was the decision to engage Rosby rather than just letting him be on the perimeter, being a jackass.
The video also shows that the two officers --may have-- deliberated that decision as well. Or... they might have been talking about who would buy beer after work..... But...
The two were talking... then one made a definite move towards Rosby, then stopped abruptly as though called by his partner, a short exchange, then back towards Rosby.
Again,,, the one guy might have said "hey... you got any chewing gum?" He turns, says "no" and carries on.
We will never know what was said or why. There was also what looks like a citizen approaching them from the other direction that they seemed to have no interest in ( person in red shirt ).
Study your reality.
This was my point from the very start. Reality has evolved to something that is was never supposed to be and people are oblivious to it because of the slow, deliberate progression away from personal liberty. In short, I actually agree with your statement.
I'll also agree that we probably can't change reality, the present, much if at all. Not without some major reductions in government.
CarlosDJackal
07-05-13, 13:55
when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail....
you dont see postmen killing dogs on a weekly basis...
bear spray is 2% OC... it will make a pissed off grizz run... the cops carry 10%.. yet they feel the need to bust a few caps off...
what would happen if when shooting a dog, the skip 1 off the pavement and hit a kid down the block?
I know of a former Animal Control Officer (AC) who finally adopted the use of a 12 GA "spray" after multiple encounters and bites from Chow hounds. He first tried firm verbal commands, then dog biscuits, then batons and pepper spray to no affect.
People can say how cruel he was all they want. But after about a half-dozen bites I can't say I blame him either. The fault totally lies with those dogs pet owners because (a) they obviously did not socialize them enough; and (b) they either let them run around lose or just dumped them in our neighborhoods because they did not want them anymore.
Anyone who is willing to receive a dog bite in lieu of using deadly force on an unfamiliar dog should just STFU and go become an ACO so they can prevent such tragedies. Why the hell we even need ACOs is beyond me.
In a lot of third world countries stray dogs usually became a meal for someone's family. Maybe if we allow such an approach maybe we would never have this type of an issue.
In a lot of third world countries stray dogs usually became a meal for someone's family. Maybe if we allow such an approach maybe we would never have this type of an issue.
One of the creepier comments posted here in some time to say the least.
Moose-Knuckle
07-05-13, 19:30
The fault totally lies with those dogs pet owners because (a) they obviously did not socialize them enough; and . . .
For some that is the whole point in owning a dog, security. Socializing would defeat the purpose.
For some that is the whole point in owning a dog, security. Socializing would defeat the purpose.
How does socializing a dog defeat the purpose of security?
You don't want a dog that is going to just randomly be aggressive towards other people/animals.
Not socializing your dog in the name of "security" is a great way to get a dog that can not be trusted around any person or animal other than yourself, that no boarding facility, trainer, veterinarian, etc, wants to deal with, that is simply a walking liability anywhere but locked up in your home with only you.
Moose-Knuckle
07-05-13, 19:43
How does socializing a dog defeat the purpose of security?
Well I can see where it would defeat the purpose if a dog runs up to any given stranger and trys to lick them to death instead of being cautious and protective of their onwer(s) and or it's territory. Not to mention taking commands from a complete stranger.
Alaskapopo
07-05-13, 20:18
Well I can see where it would defeat the purpose if a dog runs up to any given stranger and trys to lick them to death instead of being cautious and protective of their onwer(s) and or it's territory. Not to mention taking commands from a complete stranger.
True but they can be trained to follow the owners instructions not just attack or be friendly to whom ever. I don't want a dog that will bit people without being told to do so. Just like I would not want a gun to fire when I did not press the trigger.
Pat
Littlelebowski
07-05-13, 20:19
True but they can be trained to follow the owners instructions not just attack or be friendly to whom ever. I don't want a dog that will bit people without being told to do so. Just like I would not want a gun to fire when I did not press the trigger.
Pat
It's fairly trivial to do this with the good breeds.
Not to derail this thread, but I thought this was interesting in light of this discussion:
Dog shooting prompts police to change policies
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/dog-shooting-prompts-police-to-change-policies/nRpbY/
Well I can see where it would defeat the purpose if a dog runs up to any given stranger and trys to lick them to death instead of being cautious and protective of their onwer(s) and or it's territory. Not to mention taking commands from a complete stranger.
There is a difference between not-socializing a dog, and having a dog that will not be protective of its owner(s).
Just because you socialize a dog that does NOT mean it won't remain protective of its owner(s).
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.