Moderators: mogers, scorch-, Cory Cory! Price, laura
I understand the dog was being aggressive toward the cops but shooting the dog was a little too much in my opinion.Hawthorne police shot and killed a dog while arresting the dog’s owner for video recording them from a half-block away on a public sidewalk.
ward wrote:Uh the dog was about to attack the officer, so he defended himself.
Edit: Not saying this dude getting arrested was right, but the officer defending himself is. I don't get why people try to antagonize cops though. Makes zero sense.
But who created that situation, and from the looks of it, probably wrongfully?ward wrote:Uh the dog was about to attack the officer, so he defended himself.
Edit: Not saying this dude getting arrested was right, but the officer defending himself is. I don't get why people try to antagonize cops though. Makes zero sense.
Yes, he was defending himself but there were three cops standing there, I would think two of them could easily subdue the dog without causing any harm. It was the wrong choice.ward wrote:Uh the dog was about to attack the officer, so he defended himself.
Edit: Not saying this dude getting arrested was right, but the officer defending himself is. I don't get why people try to antagonize cops though. Makes zero sense.
You sure you stand by that statement? Because the arrest was a catalyst for the entirety of the events that followed.ward wrote:The guy didn't take due care in securing his dog. It doesn't matter if the arrest was legal or not, he left his window down which was negligence. He will most likely get disciplined /charged if it truly was an unlawful arrest though.
kirk wrote:You sure you stand by that statement? Because the arrest was a catalyst for the entirety of the events that followed.ward wrote:The guy didn't take due care in securing his dog. It doesn't matter if the arrest was legal or not, he left his window down which was negligence. He will most likely get disciplined /charged if it truly was an unlawful arrest though.
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.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.
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.kirk wrote: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.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.
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.
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.ward wrote: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.kirk wrote: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.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.
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.
I agree that bringing an old guy into the mix might be helpful, but you think we need someone that old?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 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.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.
There was other ways to subdue the dog without shooting multiple rounds, right?acting aggressively and was out of control. The officer in attempting to control the animal felt threatened and defended himself and his partners.
Subdue a aggressive dog with a baton.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.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
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.kirk wrote: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.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.
Feelings are for women and gay people, Hudson. Goodness.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!
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.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.
Just so you know. Some departments don't issue tazers. SFPD for example, does not.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.
I would assume that they didn't approach him sooner because they were busy supervising the apprehension of the suspects in the house.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.
But at no point did an officer approach the man. The first time he is approached he is being handcuffed.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.
The whole video if you care to watchOkay 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
So what do you know that no one else does?Polak wrote:Yeah the arrest was legit.
I lol'd pretty hardPolak wrote:
j2fmevbZi40
The irony in this statement made me smile. Thank you.Hudson` wrote:...(b) so mentally rigid and insistent on cramming everything they see into their own pre-established (typically right wing) social frame...
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.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...
Sears wrote:
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.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%.