1911 Beta

by **lolinus** » Thu Jul 04, 2013 9:14 am

The officer shooting the dog is NOT doing anything wrong. He's approaching his colleagues when the dog is on the way out of the window, looks like he's trying to calm the dog down, before the dog JUMPS at his arm and he fires his pistol. So don't blame him.

Also, the dog itself is doing what it's breed to do, protect home/family. Which it tries to do. If anyone is to blame it's the owner who might've done something to justify getting detained(and not securing the dog properly). And possibly the officers who maybe did detain him without legal cause.

I don't know/care about the legal aspect. What i do know if a dog that can bite up to 2000 psi jumps at you trying to defend his family(following instict) i sure as hell would shoot it also.

However, i do not agree to the way the dog died, it should have been shot untill it died to spare it from any pain.

Note; up to 350 pounds is the bite, a lion is on about 700 pounds.

by **Chuck Foo** » Thu Jul 04, 2013 9:11 am

The humane thing to do was one more shot to the dog's head, as it was obviously in serious pain. The dog's owner got his dog killed end of story.

by **nunz** » Thu Jul 04, 2013 3:25 am

Common Sense is apparently a thing of the past. Thanks Obama.

by **Eco** » Wed Jul 03, 2013 9:42 pm

I like where this thread is going

by **tenks** » Wed Jul 03, 2013 6:02 pm

ffwxaTpJTyI

per ward. the video I edited out and gives some context to the situation to those who didn't see the 1st video. Shows dude rolling up blasting music. This personally changed my perspective a bit. I was pulled over and ticketed for loudmusic as a 16 year old while a cop was giving someone else a traffic ticket. I dont think they said it was obstructing justice or anything, but the point is you can be pulled over for loud music, ESPECIALLY if there is an important/dangerous raid going on 30 feet away from you. It's just common sense.

I want to stay out of the debate because I'm conflicted, as I agree with points from both sides, but one thing is for certain, I definitely think this entire situation was provoked by the owner.

He did not need to tell the cops they were racist and yell at them. He could have filmed quietly like the rest of his neighbors. He had no reason to yell at the cops. None. Maybe he lived on the street the raid was on and was being blocked, still doesn't give him a reason to harass the cops that were doing there job.

by **tenks** » Wed Jul 03, 2013 5:41 pm

ward wrote:
tenks wrote:wow I was going to post this because I wanted some reaction/commentary (mainly from kirk) and I got scared because I got shit for posting it on my facebook. I guess some people didn't want to see it and were mad at me for posting..(but I didn't make them press play) Anyway, looks like I was beat to it! good stuff (The conversation I mean!) terrible tragedy tho :/

check out what happened here in SD on Monday night, cray. 24 year old killed his neighbors pitbull for attacking him and his own dog.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/jul ... -pit-bull/
Why did you edit this and remove the 1st part of the CA dog video and put a more controversial one in its place?

I posted it before reading page 2 and 3. I realized what I posted and said had already been covered so I edited it..Is that ok?

by **ward** » Wed Jul 03, 2013 5:37 pm

tenks wrote:wow I was going to post this because I wanted some reaction/commentary (mainly from kirk) and I got scared because I got shit for posting it on my facebook. I guess some people didn't want to see it and were mad at me for posting..(but I didn't make them press play) Anyway, looks like I was beat to it! good stuff (The conversation I mean!) terrible tragedy tho :/

check out what happened here in SD on Monday night, cray. 24 year old killed his neighbors pitbull for attacking him and his own dog.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/jul ... -pit-bull/

Why did you edit this and remove the 1st part of the CA dog video and put a more controversial one in its place?

by **tenks** » Wed Jul 03, 2013 5:06 pm

wow I was going to post this because I wanted some reaction/commentary (mainly from kirk) and I got scared because I got shit for posting it on my facebook. I guess some people didn't want to see it and were mad at me for posting..(but I didn't make them press play) Anyway, looks like I was beat to it! good stuff (The conversation I mean!) terrible tragedy tho :/

check out what happened here in SD on Monday night, cray. 24 year old killed his neighbors pitbull for attacking him and his own dog.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/jul ... -pit-bull/

by **kirk** » Wed Jul 03, 2013 4:54 pm

Polak wrote:Okay so before the next witch hunt for the Hawthorne, CA, police officer begins, let's look at some of the evidence seen in the video now going viral:

The police were clearly working some sort of high profile operation. Street duty cops don't carry MP5 submachine guns on a daily basis. Something important was going on (drug bust, maybe? Or a manhunt?)

Irrelevant.

The owner of the dog was verbally antagonizing the police, going as far as to say something that commented on how come all the police were white and none were black. He's calling the cops racist when he is the only one being racist in the situation.

Where did this happen?

The owner of the dog was blasting music from his car, which is not only a violation of traffic law, but is also an impairment to the cops and their ability to communicate clearly with each other.

At no point do we see an officer make it clear that the individual was violating a law. No officer approached the man. We cannot be certain that laws were broken OR that he was legitimately warned. That's speculation, and based on the behavior in the video, I'd lean more towards the explanation that the individual wasn't really told to turn down his radio given that no officer approached him until minutes AFTER the ordeal ended, and only when the two officers just kind of happened to notice him.

The police officers most likely would have told the guy plenty of times to [basically] beat it from the scene. Instead, the owner chose to stay and be buff to prove whatever moot point he was trying to make.

Speculation.

Eventually the owner turned to put his dog back in the car so it's safe to assume the police had told him yet again to leave. Here, we can hear the owner complain about a violation of rights. What rights he's talking about, I'm not sure. But though we have a right to be where we want to be, it's just stupid to remain at an active police scene that might not be safe.

Or maybe he put his dog in the car because police officers were coming toward him and he did not want to have to control his dog while conversing. Again, you are speculating.

After putting the dog back in the car, instead of leaving the owner went and approached the cops in a "COME AT ME BRO" manner. He had his chance to leave, and instead chose to stay and antagonize some more. The police DETAINED him (which is different from being arrested), and were about to put him in a squad car, most likely until the operation was over.

Further speculation.

Before you run to the owner's side and claim that he was not at all at fault, he had MANY opportunities to vacate the scene, but instead chose to remain.

Irrelevant. If he was not breaking any laws then why would he have to vacate? It is NOT his responsibility to vacate if he does not have a legal obligation to do so.

Again, think about who is at fault here: an arrogant, disruptive citizen or police officers doing their job. Remember, the police didn't shoot first and ask questions later. They gave the man MANY chances to stop and leave, but he didn't. The shooting of the dog was just collateral damage caused by its owner's hubris

Again, you are speculating. It seems like 90% of your opinion rests on assumptions rather than the LITTLE amount of information we can see in the video.

by **Fifty** » Wed Jul 03, 2013 4:19 pm

This might sound crazy but, it seems to me that both the officer and the civilian are to blame.

by **Polak** » Wed Jul 03, 2013 3:49 pm

kirk wrote:
Polak wrote:Yeah the arrest was legit.
So what do you know that no one else does?

....

Okay so before the next witch hunt for the Hawthorne, CA, police officer begins, let's look at some of the evidence seen in the video now going viral:

The police were clearly working some sort of high profile operation. Street duty cops don't carry MP5 submachine guns on a daily basis. Something important was going on (drug bust, maybe? Or a manhunt?)

The owner of the dog was verbally antagonizing the police, going as far as to say something that commented on how come all the police were white and none were black. He's calling the cops racist when he is the only one being racist in the situation.

The owner of the dog was blasting music from his car, which is not only a violation of traffic law, but is also an impairment to the cops and their ability to communicate clearly with each other.

The police officers most likely would have told the guy plenty of times to [basically] beat it from the scene. Instead, the owner chose to stay and be buff to prove whatever moot point he was trying to make.

Eventually the owner turned to put his dog back in the car so it's safe to assume the police had told him yet again to leave. Here, we can hear the owner complain about a violation of rights. What rights he's talking about, I'm not sure. But though we have a right to be where we want to be, it's just stupid to remain at an active police scene that might not be safe.

After putting the dog back in the car, instead of leaving the owner went and approached the cops in a "COME AT ME BRO" manner. He had his chance to leave, and instead chose to stay and antagonize some more. The police DETAINED him (which is different from being arrested), and were about to put him in a squad car, most likely until the operation was over.

The dog then started barking and jumped out of the car it was in, no doubt coming to the aid of its owner. At this point, a third cop comes in to try and calm the dog down. The dog makes a few lunges at the police officer's arm as the officer tries to get a hold of the leash to control it. A final lunge that would have contacted the officers arm was made, and this is when the cop shot the dog in self defense.

Before you run to the owner's side and claim that he was not at all at fault, he had MANY opportunities to vacate the scene, but instead chose to remain. While the dog shooting was unfortunate, it could have been avoided if the owner just left. Was the shooting a necessity? Maybe not. Could the cop have drawn a taser instead? Well, what are the effects of tasers on animals? Would the shock have killed the dog anyway, seeing as tasers are primed to take down grown men as heavy as 250lbs?

Again, think about who is at fault here: an arrogant, disruptive citizen or police officers doing their job. Remember, the police didn't shoot first and ask questions later. They gave the man MANY chances to stop and leave, but he didn't. The shooting of the dog was just collateral damage caused by its owner's hubris

AND WATCH THE WHOLE VIDEO I POSTED.....

by **calli** » Wed Jul 03, 2013 3:12 pm

That cop cant have much dog experience. He is so scared of that dog just cause of what type of a dog it is, that it makes the dog nervous. If that cop would have showed some balls and stood up to the dog he would never have jumped him.
This is soooo sad.

by **wintehs** » Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:10 pm

kirk wrote:
Sears wrote:

by **ward** » Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:00 pm

kanguhhh wrote:Having managed a Law Firm for almost two years now, I can tell you that this is a civil suit waiting to happen. I asked one of my attorneys and he said the same thing after watching it and reading about it. The three additional shots after the dog was trying to get away were not necessary. I won't get into how the arrest was illegal, because it was, and I don't feel like arguing with people that think they know everything about the law but this will be a civil suit 100%.

The three additional shots were not necessary? I won't get into how you know nothing about defending yourself with a firearm, because you don't, I just don't feel like arguing with people that think they know everything about the use of firearms by trained professionals in self defense.

by **kanguhhh** » Wed Jul 03, 2013 12:44 pm

Having managed a Law Firm for almost two years now, I can tell you that this is a civil suit waiting to happen. I asked one of my attorneys and he said the same thing after watching it and reading about it. The three additional shots after the dog was trying to get away were not necessary. I won't get into how the arrest was illegal, because it was, and I don't feel like arguing with people that think they know everything about the law but this will be a civil suit 100%.

by **kirk** » Wed Jul 03, 2013 12:21 pm

Sears wrote:

by **ward** » Wed Jul 03, 2013 12:20 pm

kirk wrote:People are still debating whether it was right to shoot the dog rather than focusing on the events leading up to the situation where a dog had to be killed. It's nonsense.

It's pretty much the same thing as the debates on gun control. Everyone focuses on the events themselves rather than the preceding variables which contribute to gun violence.

Like...stop...

This is why this whole issue is full of derp. People see the dog die and the whole debate becomes based on emotions instead of reason.

by **Sears** » Wed Jul 03, 2013 12:18 pm

kirk wrote:People are still debating whether it was right to shoot the dog rather than focusing on the events leading up to the situation where a dog had to be killed. It's nonsense.

It's pretty much the same thing as the debates on gun control. Everyone focuses on the events themselves rather than the preceding variables which contribute to gun violence.

Like...stop...

by **kirk** » Wed Jul 03, 2013 12:12 pm

People are still debating whether it was right to shoot the dog rather than focusing on the events leading up to the situation where a dog had to be killed. It's nonsense.

It's pretty much the same thing as the debates on gun control. Everyone focuses on the events themselves rather than the preceding variables which contribute to gun violence.

Like...stop...

by **crawtona** » Wed Jul 03, 2013 12:08 pm

Hudson` wrote:...(b) so mentally rigid and insistent on cramming everything they see into their own pre-established (typically right wing) social frame...

The irony in this statement made me smile. Thank you.

by **Eco** » Wed Jul 03, 2013 11:30 am

I honestly think the cop got scarred and shot in response. Not using his brain, he freaked out and fired the shots. The dog SNAPPED at the cop for trying to grab the leash, what dog wouldn't? He never went after the cop a second time. He lunges once to keep the cop from grabbing the leash and then pulls back, that's when the cop fires at the dog. Many other options to keep the dog calm or keep him away from his fellow officers.

by **joeledmunds** » Wed Jul 03, 2013 8:21 am

I'm not going to watch this video, because I don't really need to see all the graphic shit on the internet, but this definitely sounds like a situation that changes when you're in it. Not saying the officer wasn't a douchebag who just went for his gun because he loves using it, because maybe he was, but it's also possible he saw a snarling, dangerous animal coming at him and was actually struck with legitimate fear.

Think about it like this: while your everyday experience with dogs may be one where your pet follows you around the house, leans into your hand when you pet it, and sprawls alongside you when you take a nap. For this cop, the every day experience could be barking, growling dogs doing their best to snap their chain just so they can take a bite out of you. He may know coworkers, or even friends and family members who have endured horrible injuries from abused animals. While that isn't the animal's fault, but that of dog-owning dirtbags, not everyone would be willing to risk disfigurement or even death just to uphold an "animals are people too" ideal.

Where I come from, there are coyotes. Bounties are given on them at certain times of the year, because their population has to be controlled. If there's too many, they become a risk to pets, livestock and people. So the idea of dangerous canines being put down isn't new to me. Big, mean dogs can be deadly. How would you react if a mistreated animal was about to attack and kill your friendly, fun-loving pooch?

Like I said, I'm not going to watch this video, so I may be way off-base on this particular instance. I have no desire to watch a dog die just because this is the hot video of the week. This thread makes it sound like both human parties were in the wrong in some respect. I just don't think people should lose sight of what that animal can represent in this situation.

by **cassinoroyale** » Wed Jul 03, 2013 7:30 am

Those of you who said that would shoot the dog without hesitation clearly don't have pets (or if you do, it's either a cat or you don't love them enough). Seeing this dog being shoot and agonizing was very painful to me and in a cathartic way made me care and love my dog even more when I got home yesterday. I've watched the video twice and it didn't seemed to me that the dog would attack them. The dog was clearly nervous about seeing his best friend being held in custody and was just trying to intimidate the cops by barking and jumping. In my opinion, the third cop that approached the detainment fucked up everything and this whole situation ratifies my opinion that everyone - no matter if it's in favor or against the law - who uses guns to inflict damage / intend to kill people are fags.

RIP

by **D-bo** » Wed Jul 03, 2013 6:08 am

Polak wrote:

j2fmevbZi40

I lol'd pretty hard

by **Jstampz** » Tue Jul 02, 2013 11:52 pm

I just died a little bit

by **sevEN** » Tue Jul 02, 2013 10:10 pm

i didnt read any of the responses

but as bad as i feel for the owner of the dog seeing the cops shoot it in front of his face, i probably would have done the same. the cops gave it a few moments to see how the dog was going to react and it definitely looked like the dog was going to attack. very sad, but i am not going to hate on the cop for that.

by **kirk** » Tue Jul 02, 2013 6:51 pm

Polak wrote:Yeah the arrest was legit.

So what do you know that no one else does?

by **nunz** » Tue Jul 02, 2013 6:34 pm

The dog is a sad lose and this is something that should never have happened in the first place. The owner could have warned the officers that the dog would be aggressive but he failed to do so. This may not have changed anything but at the very least they would not have been surprised by it jumping out of the window. These officers made the mistake of making this arrest when there were clearly busy doing other things. This officer will probably lose alot of friends and peers for this so his life definitely changed the moment he fired. Sadly this idiot put himself in a situation he had no reason to do, walk your dog pick up its shit and move along. There is no reason for you to be watching a police raid no matter how cool you think it is, your putting yourself in danger and the cops are trying to do their jobs, they do not decide to raid their superiors do. At the end of the day I believe both parties made mistakes and thankfully no people were injured.

by **Polak** » Tue Jul 02, 2013 4:39 pm

Okay so before the next witch hunt for the Hawthorne, CA, police officer begins, let's look at some of the evidence seen in the video now going viral:

The police were clearly working some sort of high profile operation. Street duty cops don't carry MP5 submachine guns on a daily basis. Something important was going on (drug bust, maybe? Or a manhunt?)

The owner of the dog was verbally antagonizing the police, going as far as to say something that commented on how come all the police were white and none were black. He's calling the cops racist when he is the only one being racist in the situation.

The owner of the dog was blasting music from his car, which is not only a violation of traffic law, but is also an impairment to the cops and their ability to communicate clearly with each other.

The police officers most likely would have told the guy plenty of times to [basically] beat it from the scene. Instead, the owner chose to stay and be buff to prove whatever moot point he was trying to make.

Eventually the owner turned to put his dog back in the car so it's safe to assume the police had told him yet again to leave. Here, we can hear the owner complain about a violation of rights. What rights he's talking about, I'm not sure. But though we have a right to be where we want to be, it's just stupid to remain at an active police scene that might not be safe.

After putting the dog back in the car, instead of leaving the owner went and approached the cops in a "COME AT ME BRO" manner. He had his chance to leave, and instead chose to stay and antagonize some more. The police DETAINED him (which is different from being arrested), and were about to put him in a squad car, most likely until the operation was over.

The dog then started barking and jumped out of the car it was in, no doubt coming to the aid of its owner. At this point, a third cop comes in to try and calm the dog down. The dog makes a few lunges at the police officer's arm as the officer tries to get a hold of the leash to control it. A final lunge that would have contacted the officers arm was made, and this is when the cop shot the dog in self defense.

Before you run to the owner's side and claim that he was not at all at fault, he had MANY opportunities to vacate the scene, but instead chose to remain. While the dog shooting was unfortunate, it could have been avoided if the owner just left. Was the shooting a necessity? Maybe not. Could the cop have drawn a taser instead? Well, what are the effects of tasers on animals? Would the shock have killed the dog anyway, seeing as tasers are primed to take down grown men as heavy as 250lbs?

Again, think about who is at fault here: an arrogant, disruptive citizen or police officers doing their job. Remember, the police didn't shoot first and ask questions later. They gave the man MANY chances to stop and leave, but he didn't. The shooting of the dog was just collateral damage caused by its owner's hubris

The whole video if you care to watch

WDBZr4ie2AE

The guy was a fucking dumbass. Shut up all you dog lovers, if I saw a dog like that I would shoot it in a second. But there are cops out there who have more balls than I do and taze them like this guy...

d-Itfr_V424

Too long didn't read; Yeah the arrest was legit. Police were outside with MP5s doing a massive raid. Man other people were recording without a problem. He was obstructing, he even put his dog back in the car. Was spoke too many times.

Also side note. If there is a false arrest there are many things that need to be taken into consideration. For instance if the police kick your door down and they have the wrong house well they need to pay for any times of damages etc. However many different states have different rights.

Indiana, you can legally shoot copes who are trespassing. In MOST states when an arrest is being legal or not, the officer has priority to protect himself, and given the situation of the cop he's probably going to get away with it.... some of them are terrified of squirrels....

j2fmevbZi40

by **nomis** » Tue Jul 02, 2013 4:29 pm

That... was really hard to watch, I just hope the dog didn't end up suffering for long. I fucking hate the police, every once in a while you find a cop who's actually pretty cool, but almost all the other cops in this world are seriously assholes who abuse their power.

by **mogers** » Tue Jul 02, 2013 4:25 pm

Here are some random statements:

The police could have very easily put the owner in front of his dog and let him calm him down.

If that guy would have put his dog in the car and rolled the windows up, they would have arrested him for cruelty to animals trollololol.

How did that guy not freak the fuck out after they shot his dog? I would have hulked out of those handcuffs.

by **kirk** » Tue Jul 02, 2013 4:18 pm

acetamino wrote:ok so in the video I hear the narrator and his buddy saying, "oh look theyre talking to him do you hear what theyre saying?" and this is after the narrators are saying "i cant hear shit that music is loud"

the dogs owner was probably being detained NOT arrested. the cop tried to calm the dog down, but dogs are loyal to their owners, and he used forced.

I have to see wards point of view on this.
I didnt read the article, just watched the video and made my own interpretation.

But at no point did an officer approach the man. The first time he is approached he is being handcuffed.

by **Jb_** » Tue Jul 02, 2013 4:09 pm

That video makes me sick, delete this post. Id rather them shot the dogs owner then the dog itself. Either way this was some bullshit.

by **acetamino** » Tue Jul 02, 2013 3:31 pm

ok so in the video I hear the narrator and his buddy saying, "oh look theyre talking to him do you hear what theyre saying?" and this is after the narrators are saying "i cant hear shit that music is loud"

the dogs owner was probably being detained NOT arrested. the cop tried to calm the dog down, but dogs are loyal to their owners, and he used forced.

I have to see wards point of view on this.
I didnt read the article, just watched the video and made my own interpretation.

by **stile** » Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:43 pm

james- wrote:Shit, I forgot that tazers, pepper spray, and batons don't work on anything other than humans.

I also forgot that it's perfectly safe to discharge a firearm when there is a large crowd of people around you.

Just so you know. Some departments don't issue tazers. SFPD for example, does not.

kirk wrote: And I'm willing to bet that if a court were to see the videos, they would say any attempts by officers to have the man turn down his radio were insufficient assuming they were even present in the first place. That video shows a man standing away from police perimeter, recording the events, and then after ~7-10 minutes pass, he is arrested without having been approached previously.

If his radio was such a disturbance, why did officers allow that much time to go by...? Why did no one approach him sooner?

It absolutely appears to be an unlawful arrest. I won't say it is for certain, but it seems to be, and if that is the case then the officers are to blame for the dog being killed.

I would assume that they didn't approach him sooner because they were busy supervising the apprehension of the suspects in the house.

Dunno what a court would say. It's hard to speculate about things like that.

They really shouldn't have arrested him. A little bit of communication goes a long way. Shit like this doesn't help police image.

by **kirk** » Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:27 pm

Hudson` wrote:This is pretty clearly utter horseshit. Anyone who says otherwise is basically

(a) a troll, or
(b) so mentally rigid and insistent on cramming everything they see into their own pre-established (typically right wing) social frame that -- to any person who actually trusts their own instincts regarding right and wrong -- they are indistinguishable from a troll.

But, I mean, why bother actually being an empathetic and compassionate human being, when you can just cloak issues in an ill conceived legal framework. Then you can just apply rules -- which aren't really designed to enforce right and wrong in the first place -- to make a moral judgement on the issue. Because actually trusting your feelings is bad, you guise.

Then theres always racism lurking around anyway.

Fun for all!

Feelings are for women and gay people, Hudson. Goodness.

stile wrote:Just watched that video. I didn't see an officer approach, but it's very possible that an officer said something from a distance. I can see an officer looking at him. I can't hear anything because of that god damn music and the recorder's narrative.

And I'm willing to bet that if a court were to see the videos, they would say any attempts by officers to have the man turn down his radio were insufficient assuming they were even present in the first place. That video shows a man standing away from police perimeter, recording the events, and then after ~7-10 minutes pass, he is arrested without having been approached previously.

If his radio was such a disturbance, why did officers allow that much time to go by...? Why did no one approach him sooner?

It absolutely appears to be an unlawful arrest. I won't say it is for certain, but it seems to be, and if that is the case then the officers are to blame for the dog being killed.

by **james-** » Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:19 pm

Shit, I forgot that tazers, pepper spray, and batons don't work on anything other than humans.

I also forgot that it's perfectly safe to discharge a firearm when there is a large crowd of people around you.

by **Eco** » Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:17 pm

I understand now, but were there not other ways to protect himself? The only reason I ask is because I work at a no kill animal shelter and have to deal with aggressive dogs 24/7

by **stile** » Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:16 pm

kirk wrote:
stile wrote:The article says he was asked to turn down his music, refused, and was then arrested for obstruction of justice.

Pretty clean cut.

According to Lt. Swain, the officers approached once all original suspects were apprehended. Personally I don't think I would have arrested him. I would have let him know that he COULD be arrested because his actions potentially put my fellow officers at risk.

The shooting of the dog was unfortunate, but you have to consider that the dog was acting aggressively and was out of control. The officer in attempting to control the animal felt threatened and defended himself and his partners.
I know the article says that, but there's another video showing the arrival of the man and at no point does an officer approach him and tell him to turn down his music.

Just watched that video. I didn't see an officer approach, but it's very possible that an officer said something from a distance. I can see an officer looking at him. I can't hear anything because of that god damn music and the recorder's narrative.

by **ward** » Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:12 pm

Eco wrote:I still don't see the point firing multiple shots at the dog. Over kill? Cops are issued with a baton, why wasn't this used? He went straight for the gun. Other things could've been used to apprehend the dog or calm him down for that matter.
As far as the arrest goes, yeah he should've turned the music down. But you can not be arrested for loud music, regardless of the situation. A citation is issued to the man and he is on his way. No arrest needed. This entire incident falls on the 3 officers

You can most definitely be arrested if your loud music is preventing the police from doing their job properly. As for the multiple rounds fired, you never just fire one round in a situation where you have to use your firearm. You only draw your pistol when you intend to use deadly force (and when you do, you shoot multiply rounds to ensure your target goes down). This cop is utilizing muscle memory, as was intended by his firearm training that is in place to save his life and those of his fellow officers.

by **stile** » Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:12 pm

Eco wrote:I still don't see the point firing multiple shots at the dog. Over kill? Cops are issued with a baton, why wasn't this used? He went straight for the gun. Other things could've been used to apprehend the dog or calm him down for that matter.
As far as the arrest goes, yeah he should've turned the music down. But you can not be arrested for loud music, regardless of the situation. A citation is issued to the man and he is on his way. No arrest needed. This entire incident falls on the 3 officers

Subdue a aggressive dog with a baton.

by **Hudson`** » Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:11 pm

This is pretty clearly utter horseshit. Anyone who says otherwise is basically

(a) a troll, or
(b) so mentally rigid and insistent on cramming everything they see into their own pre-established (typically right wing) social frame that -- to any person who actually trusts their own instincts regarding right and wrong -- they are indistinguishable from a troll.

But, I mean, why bother actually being an empathetic and compassionate human being, when you can just cloak issues in an ill conceived legal framework. Then you can just apply rules -- which aren't really designed to enforce right and wrong in the first place -- to make a moral judgement on the issue. Because actually trusting your feelings is bad, you guise.

Then theres always racism lurking around anyway.

Fun for all!

by **Eco** » Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:10 pm

acting aggressively and was out of control. The officer in attempting to control the animal felt threatened and defended himself and his partners.

There was other ways to subdue the dog without shooting multiple rounds, right?

by **kirk** » Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:06 pm

stile wrote:The article says he was asked to turn down his music, refused, and was then arrested for obstruction of justice.

Pretty clean cut.

According to Lt. Swain, the officers approached once all original suspects were apprehended. Personally I don't think I would have arrested him. I would have let him know that he COULD be arrested because his actions potentially put my fellow officers at risk.

The shooting of the dog was unfortunate, but you have to consider that the dog was acting aggressively and was out of control. The officer in attempting to control the animal felt threatened and defended himself and his partners.

I know the article says that, but there's another video showing the arrival of the man and at no point does an officer approach him and tell him to turn down his music.

by **stile** » Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:05 pm

The article says he was asked to turn down his music, refused, and was then arrested for obstruction of justice.

Pretty clean cut.

According to Lt. Swain, the officers approached once all original suspects were apprehended. Personally I don't think I would have arrested him. I would have let him know that he COULD be arrested because his actions potentially put my fellow officers at risk.

The shooting of the dog was unfortunate, but you have to consider that the dog was acting aggressively and was out of control. The officer in attempting to control the animal felt threatened and defended himself and his partners.

by **Eco** » Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:04 pm

I still don't see the point firing multiple shots at the dog. Over kill? Cops are issued with a baton, why wasn't this used? He went straight for the gun. Other things could've been used to apprehend the dog or calm him down for that matter.
As far as the arrest goes, yeah he should've turned the music down. But you can not be arrested for loud music, regardless of the situation. A citation is issued to the man and he is on his way. No arrest needed. This entire incident falls on the 3 officers

by **kirk** » Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:04 pm

ward wrote:There are many angles to this thing and since neither one of us are lawyers we should consult the only one truly capable of being old enough to inform us: dan schey.

I agree that bringing an old guy into the mix might be helpful, but you think we need someone that old?

by **ward** » Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:02 pm

There are many angles to this thing and since neither one of us are lawyers we should consult the only one truly capable of being old enough to inform us: dan schey.

by **kirk** » Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:51 pm

ward wrote:
kirk wrote:
ward wrote:Who's to say the dog wouldn't have jumped out the window if the cops had just approached and talked to him? The dog dying would not have happened it it weren't for him improperly securing it. This is a fact. I love dogs too and I hate to see them die, but they can be as deadly as an armed assailant. The article also pointed out that this guy intentionally left his music blaring which was interfering with the police. They were telling him to turn it down and he refused. I'm no police officer but I'm pretty sure he's obstructing. Just saying.
Law, and morality for that matter, does not reside in the realm of "what ifs." We can sit here and ponder alternate scenarios all day but it is meaningless when looking at reality. Let's not do that.

There's another video in the news link which shows the man when he arrives on the scene, and at no point does an officer approach him and tell him to turn down his radio.
So you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that dog died because the cops arrested him? Right. Bottom line is the cops had the right to use deadly force on a large unsecured dog attacking them. Not surprised he's still suing them though.

You keep shifting the goal posts so that we remain on the use of force by the officers. Do you not realize that isn't even what this discussion is about? I already acknowledged that they were justified in using force given the situation (the dog was making threatening moves). What is up for discussion is whether the officers were legally allowed to arrest the man, which subsequently led to the dog's death.

You can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the dog was put in a position where he had to be shot solely due to the officers arresting the man, absolutely. The dog was not a threat until an arrest was made, and if the man's legal rights were broken during that arrest (i.e., if the arrest should have never occurred in the first place), then it is the fault of the officers that the dog is dead.

If that arrest was unlawful, then the officers are responsible for the dog being shot. This is a mind-bogglingly simple event. If officers invade a home without a warrant and shoot a dog who escaped from their cage in the process, guess who is responsible? The officers. This is a similar ordeal.

by **ward** » Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:43 pm

kirk wrote:
ward wrote:Who's to say the dog wouldn't have jumped out the window if the cops had just approached and talked to him? The dog dying would not have happened it it weren't for him improperly securing it. This is a fact. I love dogs too and I hate to see them die, but they can be as deadly as an armed assailant. The article also pointed out that this guy intentionally left his music blaring which was interfering with the police. They were telling him to turn it down and he refused. I'm no police officer but I'm pretty sure he's obstructing. Just saying.
Law, and morality for that matter, does not reside in the realm of "what ifs." We can sit here and ponder alternate scenarios all day but it is meaningless when looking at reality. Let's not do that.

There's another video in the news link which shows the man when he arrives on the scene, and at no point does an officer approach him and tell him to turn down his radio.

So you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that dog died because the cops arrested him? Right. Bottom line is the cops had the right to use deadly force on a large unsecured dog attacking them. Not surprised he's still suing them though.

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Police Arrest Man for Video Recording.