# Police shoot bystanders dog.



## APBTLove

Police in Hawthorne, Calif. shoot bystander's dog | ohmidog!

Warning, the video is graphic. 


So much could have been done differently. 
I have to say, what draws more emotion from me, is watching the owner when he realizes his dog is dying and they rip him away from him. That's a grown man breaking down in the middle of a crowd. Just had to watch his friend, who was trying to protect him, die like that. 

Defend the officers if you want. That dog wasn't aggressing unless they reached at him. They could have asked the owner to escort him back to the car, to tie him up, they should have catch poles. They should be trained how to handle these situations. 

Just another of mans best friend gunned down by the police.


----------



## Courtney

Thank you for the warning! I will pass on watching the video. Is there a link to a article that explains what happened?


----------



## OUbrat79

Courtney said:


> Thank you for the warning! I will pass on watching the video. Is there a link to a article that explains what happened?


There is an article with the video. When I clicked on the link the video didn't play until I clicked play so you should be able to read the article without seeing the video. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## ken k

I saw no reason for the cops cuffing this guy, they could have told him to roll the windows up before they hassled him, the dog was protecting his owner, and bullets passing through the dog and ricocheting off the ground and hitting the bystanders, cops are very lucky no one was killed


----------



## APBTLove

The guy was taking video of whatever the police were doing, it looked like a big thing, cop cars everywhere, a crowd. When they started to approach him he put his Rottweiler in his car, windows half down. They called him over and immediately put cuffs on him, I couldn't hear what was said, but when they started to drag him away from his car and his dog he resisted somewhat, the dog jumped out of the window barking, but stopped short and started sniffing all over. The officer reached at him, he charged forward and backed off again. The officer did it again, and then gunned the dog down - who managed to run/flail a good distance before convulsing in the road amidst screams and people crying, and the owner was dragged away from his dog who lay dying.


----------



## APBTLove

ken k said:


> I saw no reason for the cops cuffing this guy, they could have told him to roll the windows up before they hassled him, the dog was protecting his owner


I imagine it was hot - which is why I said they could have had AC come out if they really needed to cuff the guy and not just speak to him. He commented on the youtube video already - so I'd say they had no reason to detain him.


And you know that guy loved his dog by his reaction. He literally almost fell to his knees when he saw his buddy being shot. I can't imagine how helpless he felt.


*Also, anyone wondering, you really do not hear a reaction from the dog, I know that bothers me a lot when I see videos of dogs being shot is the screaming. I think there's a good chance he wasn't there mentally within a second or two, so it's mostly a body reaction you see. It's the crowd you hearing crying out for him.


----------



## ken k

APBTLove said:


> And you know that guy loved his dog by his reaction. He literally almost fell to his knees when he saw his buddy being shot. I can't imagine how helpless he felt.


that will be another person that has a devout hatred for the police, I hope he sues


----------



## GatorBytes

That was just horrible, to see the dog flailing on the ground like that, I just threw my hand over my mouth aghast at that moment, my dog is laying beside me, my knee touching his hip...I would just die if this happened to my dog, I leaned over and buried my face in his mane and told him I loved him.

Stupid dog owner.


----------



## Msmaria

Sad to say, but nothing new in Los Angeles. Cops are like this to people and animals every day. They get away with it too, which is why they do it more and more.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Oh man.... That was really hard to watch.

When the man put the dog in his car I almost said out loud, roll up the windows! But I bet the man did not know he was going to be cuffed.

The police were kind a rough with the man too, why, he was complying with them? Including the PO holding the rifle. I guess they don't like being videoed. 

Absolutely heart breaking and the reaction of the crowd.....


----------



## Msmaria

GatorBytes said:


> That was just horrible, to see the dog flailing on the ground like that, I just threw my hand over my mouth aghast at that moment, my dog is laying beside me, my knee touching his hip...I would just die if this happened to my dog, I leaned over and buried my face in his mane and told him I loved him.
> 
> Stupid dog owner.


Why is he a stupid dog owner? He wasnt planning on being handcuffed and you could see by the look on the cops face that if the guy turned his engine on to roll up the windows and didnt do what they were saying immediately they probably would have shot him. This guy was not breaking the law. Stupid cops. They want to scare the community from taping them by harrassing and arresting people and now killing their dog. You have the right to video a public servant in CA, but I have seen police take peoples phones , smash them with their feet and say prove it.


----------



## OUbrat79

GatorBytes said:


> Stupid dog owner.


No way was this the owners fault. He put the dog in his car when the police approached him. He was responsible. Blame the cops but not the owner. 

Also why didn't the police get onto the other people video taping? If they are going to get this guy for it, to the point that they end up killing his dog, then why not get the others?


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## APBTLove

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Oh man.... That was really hard to watch.
> *
> When the man put the dog in his car I almost said out loud, roll up the windows! But I bet the man did not know he was going to be cuffed.*
> 
> The police were kind a rough with the man too, why, he was complying with them? Including the PO holding the rifle. I guess they don't like being videoed.
> 
> Absolutely heart breaking and the reaction of the crowd.....


That's what I thought. He had no reason to think he was about to be taken anywhere.

Even if the dog sat in the car happily - that would have been irresponsible of the officers. Cali, summer, large dog left in a public place in a car? 


No, they generally do not like being taped, I think you'll be able to find plenty of videos of officers having bad reactions to be videoed. If they'd ignore it and act professional and go about their business, it would look a lot better on them. 


JUST for the record, I have no issue with law enforcement. It just seems like a lot more trigger happy cops are coming out. I mean - come on! did you hear about the 13yo Cocker spaniel!?


----------



## APBTLove

OUbrat79 said:


> No way was this the owners fault. He put the dog in his car when the police approached him. He was responsible. Blame the cops but not the owner.
> 
> Also why didn't the police get onto the other people video taping? If they are going to get this guy for it, to the point that they end up killing his dog, then why not get the others?
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App




Hopefully some more info will come out, the police will make a statement, something and we can have some answers about their actions. 

The man didn't seem to be acting aggressive or even suspicious. Maybe a little too nosy but I'd think even the cops know people are, and all they had to do is ask him to stay beyond a certain point. Very sad.


----------



## Jax08

omg...i stupidly watched it


----------



## GatorBytes

Msmaria said:


> Why is he a stupid dog owner? He wasnt planning on being handcuffed





OUbrat79 said:


> No way was this the owners fault. He put the dog in his car when the police approached him. He was responsible. Blame the cops but not the owner.
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App





GatorBytes said:


> That was just horrible, to see the dog flailing on the ground like that,
> 
> Stupid dog owner.


There was 4 cop cars, SWAT (according to link), he crossed the road and boldly videotaped the PO's, he then stood while holding his unwitting dog, holding his phone up and at the cops, despite their body language as they approached him - once he realized he was in deep khakha, he scrambled to put his dog in the car and (guessing here) was called back towards the police, or did he voluntarily go towards them?

Did the dog deserve to be shot - NO. Did the police over-react? - YES

The dog owners arrogance superseded his integrity where the safety of his dog should have been a concern. pissing off the police with dog in tow. Stupid dog owner


----------



## Jax08

The man wasn't doing anything wrong though. He has a right to stand on a public street and video tape what is happening there. He wasn't obstructing, he wasn't doing anything illegal. In fact, with the many issues areas in California have had with police brutality I can understand why he was video taping it....just in case something like this happened.

Did he make a mistake in not securing the dog? yes. But the police were way out of line and there will probably be a lawsuit.


----------



## GatorBytes

I never said he did do anything wrong. What he did was antagonize the police with his dog in tow. HE didn't tape discreetly, he stuck it up and at them. Blatant and boldly. Stupid. His dog is dead, b/c he didn't just leave well enough alone.


----------



## ken k

GatorBytes said:


> I never said he did do anything wrong. What he did was antagonize the police with his dog in tow. HE didn't tape discreetly, he stuck it up and at them. Blatant and boldly. Stupid. His dog is dead, b/c he didn't just leave well enough alone.


how did he antagonize the police? when i woke up this morning I thought i was in america


----------



## KristiM

Wish I hadn't watched that. I normally don't have an issue with cops, they are just people doing their job to the best of their ability and sometimes they make mistakes....But that was totally un called for. Why didn't they have a perimeter set up if it was a big deal for civies to be near the scene? If everyone would have stayed just a little calmer none of that would have happened and the dog had no intent until the cop started screwing with him. Very sad.


----------



## Twyla

GatorBytes said:


> I never said he did do anything wrong. What he did was antagonize the police with his dog in tow. HE didn't tape discreetly, he stuck it up and at them. Blatant and boldly. Stupid. His dog is dead, b/c he didn't just leave well enough alone.


Because so many 'leave well enough alone' is why now there is a dead dog, heartbroken owner and however many standing there who won't be able to forget the sight of the dog dying. Leaving well enough alone is why the good cops keep getting beat up because of moronic acts like this. Until enough people get po'd enough to start speaking up and refuse to be quiet about it, and that includes the good cops, instances like this will continue to happen.


----------



## Betty

GatorBytes said:


> I never said he did do anything wrong. What he did was antagonize the police with his dog in tow. HE didn't tape discreetly, he stuck it up and at them. Blatant and boldly. Stupid. His dog is dead, b/c he didn't just leave well enough alone.


Police being video'd from a public street is antagonizing?


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Yeah that's what I figured. The man did nothing wrong but he was clearly demonstrating his distrust of the police by videoing so close to their vehicles. Clearly there is very little trust between the police and that community and it just creates this sort of viscous negative cycle. 

Nope had not heard about the cocker spaniel but in the other thread about police shooting a dog (the GSD in TX) I linked a video which shows pics of dogs shot by police. In that video there is a dachshund. 



APBTLove said:


> That's what I thought. He had no reason to think he was about to be taken anywhere.
> 
> Even if the dog sat in the car happily - that would have been irresponsible of the officers. Cali, summer, large dog left in a public place in a car?
> 
> 
> No, they generally do not like being taped, I think you'll be able to find plenty of videos of officers having bad reactions to be videoed. If they'd ignore it and act professional and go about their business, it would look a lot better on them.
> 
> 
> JUST for the record, I have no issue with law enforcement. It just seems like a lot more trigger happy cops are coming out. I mean - come on! did you hear about the 13yo Cocker spaniel!?


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

The story about the 13 YO cocker spaniel:



> Zach Grimm and Dave Biller say Kirby, a 13-year-old cocker spaniel, is recovering from a gunshot wound to the shoulder after barking at an officer in the backyard of their home in the 2000 block of Weaver Court on June 17.
> But a week after the incident, the two say they have received no explanation from police about why officers were in their yard. Worse, they said, they have not received an apology from the department.
> 
> "It's obviously pretty upsetting," said Grimm, 29, who said the dog has been in his family for about 10 years. "The officer who shot at him, after it was over he just sort of had this goofy look on his face, almost like a smirk, and then he left. No explanation, no apology or anything."


 Concord: Owners of cocker spaniel shot by police seek apology - San Jose Mercury News


----------



## RiverDan

Please don't be offended.
Should that dog have been shot? No.
Should the owner have put that dog in that position? No.
He wasn't even part of anything. He pulls up, jumps out all tough like, with a big tough dog.
He was being an idiot. Trying to be a tough guy. He dog is dead because of it.
The dog/owner didn't need to be there.


----------



## Shaolin

I hate when people video emergency scenes. From a providers' prospective, it's annoying as crap and there's no real reason to do it. The providers also get in trouble if a patients' face is shown on YouTube due to HIPPA. Stupid bystander doesn't get blamed for taping it, but we get heck for the patients' face being all over YouTube.

*rant over*

The owner is at fault here. He *never* should've stopped his car to video a bunch of cops walking around with his dog in the car...but it's a free country so whatever. It's annoying to us, but you have the right to do it. He *never* should've taken his dog out of the car. That was just beyond dumb. If he truly felt the urge to get out of the car, he could've left the dog in with the windows down enough for ventilation, but not far enough for the dog to jump out.

In the video, the dog lunged at the officer and the officer shot. The officer was defending himself from a dog with unknown intentions. The guy looked like he started resisting and that's when the officers became a bit more firm with the gentleman. 

The blame lies with the owner and I'm sorry if that offends anyone. The cop was defending himself and his partners. I feel horrible for the dog, but the only sadness I feel for the owner is not being able to go to his buddy as he took his last breath. Past that, I have no pitty.


----------



## Gretchen

I see fault with both the police and dog owner - both guilty of neglect.
Dog owner should not be following and filming the police, the bystanders do not know what type of scene this is. The dog should have been secured in the car with windows up far enough so the dog can't jump out.

Police saw this man had a dog, should have asked him to secure it if they planned on handcuffing him. Its sad the only innocent party in the video gets the death sentence.


----------



## BellaLuna

I had to stop the video short because my heart was racing and I couldn't get through it, to me the Rottweiler wasn't being aggressive to the point they had to kill it. Makes me sick, that this is what it came to.Horrible just horrible


----------



## BellaLuna

gretchen said:


> i see fault with both the police and dog owner - both guilty of neglect.
> Dog owner should not be following and filming the police, the bystanders do not know what type of scene this is. The dog should have been secured in the car with windows up far enough so the dog can't jump out.
> 
> Police saw this man had a dog, should have asked him to secure it if they planned on handcuffing him. Its sad the only innocent party in the video gets the death sentence.


i agree


----------



## Fade2Black

Ya people shouldn't be videoing the police. The camera doesn't lie but the police sure do. Wouldn't want any video proof to get in the way of another cop lying.....

Last time I checked this was supposed to be America and anyone is free to film anything they want in a public place.....

I live in NJ. Assemblyman Paul Moriarty introduced the legislation to have video in every police vehicle after charges of drunken driving filed against him by a Washington Township, Gloucester County, police officer were dismissed. The officer was charged with tampering with records and other offenses. A camera in the officer’s car showed that much of what he said happened during his stop of Moriarty was untrue.....

How many more examples (just the ones in here make you ill) does anyone need a badge is a license to do as they please?? One recent example 10000 crazed LEO's in LA on that manhunt. They shot up and occupied van delivering newspapers that would make Al Capone envious. Then shot two other civilians just because they could).....

Any football fan will get this analogy. I am a long suffering Raider fan. They have a motto "A commitment to Excellence". It is as empty and meaningless as to "Protect and Serve" is....


----------



## Warvn

Omg!!!


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Cetan

Poor dog... Stupid owner and stupid cops. But the dog loses.


----------



## seabeck

I can't even process all the things that make me ill about the situation. The only truely innocent in the entire encounter was the dog!!!!!
Re enforces why I love animals and tolerate humans when possible.

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Jax08

seabeck said:


> The only truely innocent in the entire encounter was the dog!!!!!



Yes! And what a nice dog. He was just walking and minding his own business until the police grabbed his owner and he did was he was bred to do. Poor guy.


----------



## BellaLuna

Jax08 said:


> Yes! And what a nice dog. He was just walking and minding his own business until the police grabbed his owner and he did was he was bred to do. Poor guy.


Absolutely he did what most dogs would do under the circumstances, how could he have possibly known the threat level 

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Bystanders have the right to video and take pictures while standing on the public right of way. If it's taped off crime scene they should not cross the line, other then that last time I checked it's still a free country.  sort of comrades.

HIPPA issues are not related to this incident.


----------



## Loneforce

There was other people video recording this too. There has to be more to this then meets the eye. Why would they single out the guy with the dog? Very sad video to watch


----------



## Cschmidt88

I'm not against the police at all, I'm friends with several officers who are nice people... but these videos and reports of very unjust shootings... it just scares the heck out of me. Dogs + cops is an anxiety trigger for me now.


----------



## llombardo

I can't help but wonder if what the guy was taping shouldn't have been taped. Its a free country, they really don't have a right to stop one from video taping, but they can harass them and if they arrest them, that video becomes evidence. I didn't watch the video, I just can't. I don't blame the owner one bit. I sure hope the police officers arrested him for something, because if they didn't they are in for a world of  Way to many witnesses and I'm sure they weren't aware that yet another american was using their rights and video taping the police murdering a dog


----------



## Betty

How heatbreaking. He really looked like a nice dog too.


----------



## Shaolin

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Bystanders have the right to video and take pictures while standing on the public right of way. If it's taped off crime scene they should not cross the line, other then that last time I checked it's still a free country.  sort of comrades.
> 
> HIPPA issues are not related to this incident.


I never said it was. I was just ranting about people taping emergency scenes like this in general and used a personal experience as an example of why I was frustrated by it. 

Yes, everyone has the right to take video of whatever they want to as long as they are on public property and I never said I was against it...I just have a personal frustration with it. Nothing like trying to do your job and someone has a cellphone camera and they're standing right on top of you while taping/taking pictures, then the minute you ask them to step back so you can work, they start screaming that you are infringing upon their rights, yet you can't do your job effectively because they are standing right in the middle of things.

Where do your rights end and mine begin?

But that's very OT and if you want to continue this particular conversation, feel free to PM me.


----------



## Fade2Black

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Bystanders have the right to video and take pictures while standing on the public right of way. If it's taped off crime scene they should not cross the line, other then that last time I checked it's still a free country.  sort of comrades.
> 
> HIPPA issues are not related to this incident.



I don't understand how anyone can defend these cops in these dog murder cases. The dog owner did nothing wrong. That's why police get away with what they do. The cop sympathizers enable them to do it. Police wouldn't get away with this stuff if enough of us cared.....

Let's see. Video brought down the Boston Marathon bombers. Without it they are still running loose. In general. Three guesses why the police don't want them being video taped and the first two don't count (this isn't the first time police wanted video stopped being shot). They don't want any evidence showing them doing something potentially wrong. Like for instance when they unnecessarily beat a suspect.....


----------



## Zahnburg

Allow me to begin by stating that I do not hold a grudge against nor do dislike police officers. I recognize that they serve an often dangerous and unappreciated yet vital role in modern society. I know and am friends with many police officers and every one of them is an upstanding person who does their absolute best to protect and serve the citizens of the community that they serve.

However, I am beginning to believe that those officers that I know are in the minority. I am never surprised to see video or news articles that detail events similar and worse than the one detailed here. This video does not even begin to surprise me. These are, after all, officers from the same region and of the same mid-set of those that recently fired myriad rounds into the pick-up truck of two unarmed women delivering newspapers and then, within minutes, their fellow officers fired repeatedly through the windshield of another innocent citizen. And when these officers did catch up to the person they were seeking they made, despite having a huge tactical advantage and the ability to "wait him out", no attempt to capture him, instead choosing to burn his hiding place, and him, to the ground. 



_**** Deleted by ADMIN due to general political content **** _

 I have decided that I will no longer supply police nor Federal agencies with any dog that I have bred, own or have trained. I will not condone nor will I be a party to supplying dogs to these agencies that intend to use these weapons against peaceful American citizens.


----------



## selzer

Ya know, I don't want to see people taping crime scenes and stuff either, but if he was in the way, the cops should have ordered him to leave. THEN, if he did not leave, and they needed to arrest him, and his dog attacked them, they could have shot the dog. 

But this was totally disgusting. How dare those officers cuff someone for what? Using his phone to videotape them? Since when is that a crime? 

That dog was a nice dog, not bothering anyone, not hurting anyone. Ok, it's not a pappillon. When he saw his owner being cuffed and manhandled, it reacted. Good Dog! And the cops shot the dog. 

I guess for me and my dogs, I will not videotape cops when I have a dog with me, in case they feel the need to take me down and kill my dog. But it is really sad that cops feel perfectly happy doing this KNOWING they are being videotaped. 

I hope the cop that did this lose their jobs and get a hefty fine and the owner sues to compensate him for the dog, and as much pain and suffering possible. It won't bring the dog back, but it might make the city take a different stance on such situations. 

RIP Good Rottweiler Dog. How sad that your life was taken by people that are supposed to be the good guys.


----------



## selzer

I don't think they are in the minority. I think that incidents like this, reflect badly on the whole, and certain locations will have officers that will act similar to other officers, because of what they can get away with, what everyone does, who is unlikely to fight back. And probably because some areas draw the dreggs of society. I mean, if no one in suburbia will touch you because of an incident with a dog, but you hear that this area or that area will not have a problem with that, you might go there.


----------



## GSD5150

Brought tears to my eyes. It disgusts me that they shot the dog. They COULD have told him to roll up the windows just enough for the dog not to get out, especially when he was reacting to his owner getting arrested. Dog don't know what breaking the law ( not sure if ANY law was broken, imo it wasn't necessary to arrest the man, could have told him to piss off and go home) 

What really gets to me is them pulling the man away while they also WATCHED the dog suffer as he was rolling and twitching on the ground. You already shot him, owners goung to jail, not to the vet with his dog and you can't give him a fatal shot to end his misery? ??? PLEASE don't let my dog suffer like that if I were to ever be in a situation where an officer shoots my dog. Watching it roll was sickening to me. Maybe he did give him a fatal shot, the video DID cut off. I wish cops were better trained in situations like this. 

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Shaolin

Can I ask a general question?

If a dog lunged at you the way the dog did in the video, do you feel that you would "defend" yourself by doing something that would cause injury to the dog like kicking or hitting the dog, or do you feel that you would allow the dog to follow through with the lunge to find out if the dog was actually aggressive, or just bluffing?

I don't know how I feel about the dog being shot other than saying the officer was in the right to protect himself. I have no idea how a Taser would work on a dog and pepper spray is hit or miss with its effectiveness and usually just gives you a more PO'ed dog, so I'm sure if the Taser didn't send the dog running, you'd probably end up with 100lbs of PO'ed dog trying to eat your face off.

Unfortunately, this isn't cut and dry. There are many dog vs. cop situations where I'd be the first person to stand up and say the cops were 100% wrong and they deserve to be fired or face a serious penalty, but I just can't for this one. There's too much blame going around for everyone in this situation.


----------



## Gharrissc

Besides the dog getting shot, the most heartbreaking thing was hearing the man plead for his dog not to be shot in the first place. Yes, he *should* have rolled the windows up, but I am sure he didn't know that the situation would have escalated the way it did. On the other hand, the officers could have handled things a lot differently. This man was out of the way recording and wasn't in the middle of the crime scene.It didn't have to end this way for the dog. 

Since the officers felt that they were justified in shooting the dog, then the least they could have done was finish him off.


----------



## selzer

But do we arrest bystanders for simply videotaping. 

I know the cops around here would have called me over, and told me to stay behind a certain area, or to go home, or whatever. They would not immediately pull out handcuffs. 

Unless something was going on, where that guy was involved, then the cops should have never cuffed the guy, and the dog would have never jumped through the window at them. 

This was a situation totally created by the officers. And they should get plenty of heat for it. 

Ya know what? Most cops are not out there willing to help us socialize our dogs to them. I mean, let's say when our puppy is 12 weeks old, we have several cops go through the entire -- I'm arresting you scenario while the puppy is present so that the puppy can learn that this is perfectly acceptable. 

If anyone OTHER than a police officer was to do this sort of thing to you, would you want your dog to hang out in the car and wait for them to get done beating you to a pulp, or handcuffing you and dragging you away. I can't be certain what my dog would do if a cop was arresting me, if nothing, OK, I did not train her to protect. But if she did react, I just could not hold that against her, because we do not train our dogs to think that the act of being arrested is perfectly normal.


----------



## selzer

I don't know if he could have rolled the windows up. If the officers were at that point calling to him, he probably could not make any move that they might think is getting a weapon, or trying to flee. 

The officers need to come up with a serious crime that this guy was commiting that they should have had the right to detain him for.


----------



## GatorBytes

RiverDan said:


> Please don't be offended.
> Should that dog have been shot? No.
> Should the owner have put that dog in that position? No.
> He wasn't even part of anything. He pulls up, jumps out all tough like, with a big tough dog.
> He was being an idiot. Trying to be a tough guy. He dog is dead because of it.
> The dog/owner didn't need to be there.


Exactly.


----------



## GSD5150

Loneforce said:


> There was other people video recording this too. There has to be more to this then meets the eye. Why would they single out the guy with the dog? Very sad video to watch


I agree. We do not know if words were said. He WAS being obnoxious as all ****. I think we can ALL agree with that. 

It gets my blood going when I hear and see these types of stories. Claw wouldn't necessarily try to "protect" me, at least I don't think so. I think he would rush towards the cops for a nice pet, he's way to social for his own good. He let our maintenance guy walk inside of our apartment before he even formally greeted him. Dillinger on the other hand would try to save his momma. I think videos like this should make all of us more aware as pet owners to run from situations like this as if it's the plague. Have multiple signs up ( although that hasn't stopped some cops) if there are cops and even helicopters looking for someone we should bring our dogs inside and so on and so fourth. 

This isn't something any of us anticipate in the heat of the moment but it's something we should all be aware of. There are plenty of stories floating around to have it imbedded in our brains now. Does this video and others similar disgust me? You bet! Can we prevent things like this from happening? We sure as **** can try. 

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Gharrissc

People record emergencies everyday, I don't see this man as being 'tough' or 'obnoxious' in the least bit. If he wanted to try to prove something he would have gone up in the middle of the scene. If he were trying to use his dog as a threat, I am sure he could have thought of a way to do it. If the police felt like they were right, then they could have done the more humane thing at least and killed the dog, not just shot and left it flailing around. I don't think all law enforcement are bad and have seen many go out of their way to help dogs. I do think that these officers could have handled the situation differently though.


----------



## boomer11

if a rottweiler barked at me and lunged at me like that one did, i'd shoot it dead in a heart beat. the cop had to make a split decision. who knew if the dog was bluffing. i felt the shooting itself was completely justified. if it was my kid standing behind me and the dog acted that way, i'd shoot it right away.

it is such a tragedy that it had to end that way though. everyone is to blame except the dog and yet the dog paid the highest price.


----------



## Muneraven

I wish I could unsee that video.

The people criticizing the dog owner are NUTS.


Given the behavior of the police officers and the bystanders, can anyone actually doubt that the people in this neighborhood have had previous issues with police officers on power trips behaving badly? So bystanders were videoing the police. They very likely have good reasons to be doing that given the subsequent behavior of the officers! They handcuffed a man who was in no way committing a crime because they were standing around bored with nothing to do and they didn't like how the guy was acting or something he was saying. 

As for the owner "irresponsibly" having the window down...give me a break. He thought he was getting right into the car with his dog. Then the police came at him barking orders. If you were a Black man would YOU have reached into the car to roll up the window? If you did YOU might well be dead. He didn't know they were going to cuff him when he complied with their orders. He didn't have a chance to secure the dog and the police idiotically did not allow him to secure his dog even thopugh he was completely obedient to them in every way despite the bad arrest.

There is no excuse whatsoever for what happens on that tape. Two bored, fat cops with nothing to do at some crime scene just got their panties in a twist and decided to show a Black man who was boss. Then they endangered bystanders and the whole neighborhood by gunning down a confused, distressed dog. The officers did pretty much everything wrong one can do in such a situation. Chief Wiggins on "The Simpsons" isn't that inept. 

And it's terrifying because so many people will excuse what they did just because they are police officers. As if a uniform magically makes you a hero.


----------



## Muneraven

boomer11 said:


> if a rottweiler barked at me and lunged at me like that one did, i'd shoot it dead in a heart beat. the cop had to make a split decision. who knew if the dog was bluffing. i felt the shooting itself was completely justified. if it was my kid standing behind me and the dog acted that way, i'd shoot it right away.
> 
> it is such a tragedy that it had to end that way though. everyone is to blame except the dog and yet the dog paid the highest price.


The owner was right there. HE WAS RIGHT THERE. The cop knew whose dog it was. They saw the dog. The dog didn't magically appear out of no where! All they had to do is push the guy forward and say "Call off your dog." 

And if you would shoot a dog who rushed at you* while you were manhandling its owner*, then shame on you. You should own neither dogs nor guns. Anyone with a lick of sense would EXPECT a dog to defend its owner and would take steps to make sure the situation did not escalate into violence the way it did. Context matters.


----------



## Mrs.K

Zahnburg said:


> Allow me to begin by stating that I do not hold a grudge against nor do dislike police officers. I recognize that they serve an often dangerous and unappreciated yet vital role in modern society. I know and am friends with many police officers and every one of them is an upstanding person who does their absolute best to protect and serve the citizens of the community that they serve.
> 
> However, I am beginning to believe that those officers that I know are in the minority. I am never surprised to see video or news articles that detail events similar and worse than the one detailed here. This video does not even begin to surprise me. These are, after all, officers from the same region and of the same mid-set of those that recently fired myriad rounds into the pick-up truck of two unarmed women delivering newspapers and then, within minutes, their fellow officers fired repeatedly through the windshield of another innocent citizen. And when these officers did catch up to the person they were seeking they made, despite having a huge tactical advantage and the ability to "wait him out", no attempt to capture him, instead choosing to burn his hiding place, and him, to the ground.
> 
> 
> _**** Deleted by ADMIN due to general political content **** _
> 
> 
> I have decided that I will no longer supply police nor Federal agencies with any dog that I have bred, own or have trained. I will not condone nor will I be a party to supplying dogs to these agencies that intend to use these weapons against peaceful American citizens.


:toasting::toasting::toasting::toasting::toasting:

I salute you!


----------



## Muneraven

Shaolin said:


> Can I ask a general question?
> 
> If a dog lunged at you the way the dog did in the video, do you feel that you would "defend" yourself by doing something that would cause injury to the dog like kicking or hitting the dog, or do you feel that you would allow the dog to follow through with the lunge to find out if the dog was actually aggressive, or just bluffing?
> 
> I don't know how I feel about the dog being shot other than saying the officer was in the right to protect himself. I have no idea how a Taser would work on a dog and pepper spray is hit or miss with its effectiveness and usually just gives you a more PO'ed dog, so I'm sure if the Taser didn't send the dog running, you'd probably end up with 100lbs of PO'ed dog trying to eat your face off.
> 
> Unfortunately, this isn't cut and dry. There are many dog vs. cop situations where I'd be the first person to stand up and say the cops were 100% wrong and they deserve to be fired or face a serious penalty, but I just can't for this one. There's too much blame going around for everyone in this situation.


Let me ask you a question in return: If I was standing around with my 90 lb GSD and then put him in my car --window down -- and you decided to come over and MANHANDLE me, wouldn't you consider the possibility that my large, protective breed of dog might take exception to you forcibly removing me from his presence? And wouldn't you think this through and take steps to keep EVERYONE safe? 

Because that is what the cops should have done.

The police are supposed to use their brains before their guns.


----------



## boomer11

it doesnt matter if the owner was right there. the dude was put in handcuffs and was being searched. are the cops suppose to uncuff the guy? like i said, it was an unfortunate situation. the cop could've shot much sooner. and looking at the video again the dog wasnt aggressive at all. he seemed like a VERY solid tempered dog. he just reacted when the cop tried to grab his collar. but what were the cops suppose to do? let the dog just circle them barking while waiting for animal control? the guy should've kept driving instead of stopping to get out of his car acting like he owned the place. 

those cops were just there doing their job. that guy was there just to be a ****.


----------



## Shaolin

Muneraven said:


> The owner was right there. HE WAS RIGHT THERE. The cop knew whose dog it was. They saw the dog. The dog didn't magically appear out of no where! All they had to do is push the guy forward and say "Call off your dog."
> 
> And if you would shoot a dog who rushed at you* while you were manhandling its owner*, then shame on you. You should own neither dogs nor guns. Anyone with a lick of sense would EXPECT a dog to defend its owner and would take steps to make sure the situation did not escalate into violence the way it did. Context matters.


If I were a cop, I'd never tell someone to call off a dog. Have you seen the video from the late 90's where the woman was to surrender two dogs to AC? The AC officer told the woman to verbally command one of the dogs that was not complying. In that instant, the woman commanded her dog to attack and attack it did, seriously injuring the AC officer. All it takes is one word and a trained dog would be all over someone mauling the individual.

The guy never should've been there with the dog in the first place. The suspect, IMHO, was not being manhandled. I watched as the guy started stutter stepping and pulling back, which is resisting, and the cops did what they were trained to do, but he wasn't being manhandled. If the guy was being assaulted by the cops, that's one thing, but he was not being hit, beaten, kicked, maced, or Tased.

As for the race thing...I'm not even gonna touch that one. He had a chance to secure his dog; prior to getting out of the car and the three minutes he was walking around recording before the incident happened. I will say it again: *There was no reason for him to be walking around recording with the dog.* Record all you want, but leave the freaking dog secured in the car.


----------



## Shaolin

Muneraven said:


> Let me ask you a question in return: If I was standing around with my 90 lb GSD and then put him in my car --window down -- and you decided to come over and MANHANDLE me, wouldn't you consider the possibility that my large, protective breed of dog might take exception to you forcibly removing me from his presence? And wouldn't you think this through and take steps to keep EVERYONE safe?
> 
> Because that is what the cops should have done.
> 
> The police are supposed to use their brains before their guns.


I would, but at the same time I would've done exactly what that cop did. The cop didn't shoot the dog until the dog lunged at him. The dog got out of the car and was "okay" with the situation until the gentleman started freaking out, which in turn freaked the dog out. The dog lunged and got shot.

If anything, the only difference would've been I would've been telling you to calm down as to not excite your dog, but if it came after me...that would be the end of your dog.


----------



## Malachi'sMama

A simple, 'Sir, please take your dog and vacate the premises' would have sufficed..

if he hadn't complied after that..
different story.
But the way things went down in this scenario is misuse of authority at its worst.

I had a rottweiler for many years, he had no formal training, only what I had taught him. He was very protective of me, would bark like crazy at someone talking loudly to me or threatening me, he would lunge..but never bite. 
On my drive back home from college one weekend, I had my Rotti, Ben, in the backseat of my suv. I was on the interstate when I cut off a vehicle in an attempt to switch lanes. The vehicle raced up on my bumper and began telling me to 'pull my vehicle over to the side of the road!' yelling and screaming over his loudspeaker. The vehicle was unmarked.
When I pulled over, a plain clothes individual got out of the car, with no badge or credentials in sight (this was not long after the string of incidences where a man was pulling women over and impersonating an officer and then assaulting them). So I was somewhat concerned. Ben was on alert.
As soon as this man stepped out of his vehicle, he was yelling at me. "What were you doing??! Do you know how fast you were going?! Let me see your license!", etc etc..
Ben didn't like the way this man was yelling at me and approaching me.
He began to bark.
The officer proceeded to SMASH out my back window, draw his weapon, and tell me to control my dog immediately or he would be shot. I'd still like to know the purpose of smashing my window out, it was almost like he was HOPING the situation would escalate and he could shoot my dog...
Long story short, nothing came of the incident. I commanded Ben to lay down, he whined in the back seat while watching the man intently. I called my dad to tell him what was going on, just in case it turned out to NOT be a cop..but..it was crazy. And I had to replace a very expensive window...

I just hate this trend that seems to be getting more and more commonplace. I hope something is done to bring more attention to the 'epidemic' in general.


----------



## Kayos and Havoc

Zahnburg said:


> Allow me to begin by stating that I do not hold a grudge against nor do dislike police officers. I recognize that they serve an often dangerous and unappreciated yet vital role in modern society. I know and am friends with many police officers and every one of them is an upstanding person who does their absolute best to protect and serve the citizens of the community that they serve.
> 
> However, I am beginning to believe that those officers that I know are in the minority. I am never surprised to see video or news articles that detail events similar and worse than the one detailed here. This video does not even begin to surprise me. These are, after all, officers from the same region and of the same mid-set of those that recently fired myriad rounds into the pick-up truck of two unarmed women delivering newspapers and then, within minutes, their fellow officers fired repeatedly through the windshield of another innocent citizen. And when these officers did catch up to the person they were seeking they made, despite having a huge tactical advantage and the ability to "wait him out", no attempt to capture him, instead choosing to burn his hiding place, and him, to the ground.
> 
> _**** Deleted by ADMIN due to general political content **** _
> 
> I have decided that I will no longer supply police nor Federal agencies with any dog that I have bred, own or have trained. I will not condone nor will I be a party to supplying dogs to these agencies that intend to use these weapons against peaceful American citizens.


:toasting:




Sure you would Boomer 11.
http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/report.php?p=3796146 
if a rottweiler barked at me and lunged at me like that one did, i'd shoot it dead in a heart beat. the cop had to make a split decision. who knew if the dog was bluffing. i felt the shooting itself was completely justified. if it was my kid standing behind me and the dog acted that way, i'd shoot it right away.


I am so sick to death of over reaching and dishonesty among our police. 

http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/report.php?p=3796146


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

I understand your frustration and dated an EMT for a period of time and heard some stories similar. The only problem I have with the mention of HIPPA and those 'rights' is it's OT and not comparable to the situation of a dog being shot so that's why I made the comment.

No worries on my side. 

(btw hope you and your handsome Finn are doing well!)



Shaolin said:


> I never said it was. I was just ranting about people taping emergency scenes like this in general and used a personal experience as an example of why I was frustrated by it.
> 
> Yes, everyone has the right to take video of whatever they want to as long as they are on public property and I never said I was against it...I just have a personal frustration with it. Nothing like trying to do your job and someone has a cellphone camera and they're standing right on top of you while taping/taking pictures, then the minute you ask them to step back so you can work, they start screaming that you are infringing upon their rights, yet you can't do your job effectively because they are standing right in the middle of things.
> 
> Where do your rights end and mine begin?
> 
> But that's very OT and if you want to continue this particular conversation, feel free to PM me.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

So if we look at this a little more clinically what exactly did the man do that was against the law? Based on the evidence we watched nothing.

Was there a bit of a swagger about him with his dog while videoing? Yes. Is that against the law? No.

In a way he was 'pushing' his authority by videoing so close to the scene but technically he didn't cross any lines. 

It was only AFTER he started to go to his car and leave did the police decide to push their 'authority'.

It certainly is fair to say this man exercised poor judgement but that poor judgement was NOT breaking any laws. Therefore the police bear the brunt of responsibility for the following reason: They made a *choice to escalate and use force when it was not necessary.* Remember the man was leaving, he did not break any laws nor confront or otherwise get in the way of the officers. He got close to the patrol cars but did NOT go past them.

This would be akin to having a verbal argument, *you walking away*, the other person physically grabbing you and YOU being blamed as the aggressor. You may have made a poor judgement in having the verbal argument but legally you did nothing wrong and then tried to walk away. Why should you be held accountable for the escalation of the incident? 

The only difference is the police are far too often allowed to be ABOVE the law. 

There is a video that I can't post because it will become way too political but it shows an officer very artfully DEescalating a situation.

Mrs K alluded to this in another dog shot by police thread. The police in our country seem to be falling into the habit of escalating situations when they have other options, there's an impatience about them an easy willingness to throw their weight around where it's not their place to do so. That is wrong and it will continue to erode the trust citizens place in our Police depts. 



Shaolin said:


> If I were a cop, I'd never tell someone to call off a dog. Have you seen the video from the late 90's where the woman was to surrender two dogs to AC? The AC officer told the woman to verbally command one of the dogs that was not complying. In that instant, the woman commanded her dog to attack and attack it did, seriously injuring the AC officer. All it takes is one word and a trained dog would be all over someone mauling the individual.
> 
> The guy never should've been there with the dog in the first place. The suspect, IMHO, was not being manhandled. I watched as the guy started stutter stepping and pulling back, which is resisting, and the cops did what they were trained to do, but he wasn't being manhandled. If the guy was being assaulted by the cops, that's one thing, but he was not being hit, beaten, kicked, maced, or Tased.
> 
> As for the race thing...I'm not even gonna touch that one. He had a chance to secure his dog; prior to getting out of the car and the three minutes he was walking around recording before the incident happened. I will say it again: *There was no reason for him to be walking around recording with the dog.* Record all you want, but leave the freaking dog secured in the car.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Wow....

I join the others in commending you and for seeing this not as just isolated incidents but a trend that should not be ignored.






Zahnburg said:


> Allow me to begin by stating that I do not hold a grudge against nor do dislike police officers. I recognize that they serve an often dangerous and unappreciated yet vital role in modern society. I know and am friends with many police officers and every one of them is an upstanding person who does their absolute best to protect and serve the citizens of the community that they serve.
> 
> However, I am beginning to believe that those officers that I know are in the minority. I am never surprised to see video or news articles that detail events similar and worse than the one detailed here. This video does not even begin to surprise me. These are, after all, officers from the same region and of the same mid-set of those that recently fired myriad rounds into the pick-up truck of two unarmed women delivering newspapers and then, within minutes, their fellow officers fired repeatedly through the windshield of another innocent citizen. And when these officers did catch up to the person they were seeking they made, despite having a huge tactical advantage and the ability to "wait him out", no attempt to capture him, instead choosing to burn his hiding place, and him, to the ground.
> 
> We, the citizens of these United States, have, for too long, allowed and even promoted the over-reach and grievous misconduct of those that WE hire and PAY to protect us. For how long will we continue to allow these outrageous abuses of our natural and God given rights; rights guaranteed by our Constitution, to continue?
> 
> I, for one, refuse to live in such an Orwellian state; I am not a citizen of Oceania! When Big Brother has the ability, and seemingly the rule of law, to spy upon and violently oppress citizens who have not broken any law; when He uses federal agencies to suppress free speech; when He attempts to violate and dismiss the God given rights of the citizens. When these offences occur and the elected officials of the People decide to forsake those they represent and instead turn to Big Brother then it is the right and DUTY of the people to, in some way, resist such tyranny.
> 
> I have decided that I will no longer supply police nor Federal agencies with any dog that I have bred, own or have trained. I will not condone nor will I be a party to supplying dogs to these agencies that intend to use these weapons against peaceful American citizens.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

....and being a *jerk* is not against the law as long as he didn't interfere or otherwise hassle the police on scene. In the video he does not appear to be shouting, bad mouthing or in any physical way impeding the police. He didn't cross any crime scene tape or ignore any orders to stand back.

The police made a choice to escalate *after he started to leave*. That's where the police clearly went over the line, at THAT moment they were in the wrong. If they thought he was too close all they had to do was order him to stand back earlier.

So in essence they threw the first punch at a man who had not broken the law. 

That lead to the escalation and shots being fired at the dog.







boomer11 said:


> it doesnt matter if the owner was right there. the dude was put in handcuffs and was being searched. are the cops suppose to uncuff the guy? like i said, it was an unfortunate situation. the cop could've shot much sooner. and looking at the video again the dog wasnt aggressive at all. he seemed like a VERY solid tempered dog. he just reacted when the cop tried to grab his collar. but what were the cops suppose to do? let the dog just circle them barking while waiting for animal control? the guy should've kept driving instead of stopping to get out of his car acting like he owned the place.
> 
> those cops were just there doing their job. that guy was there just to be a ****.


----------



## APBTLove

Shaolin said:


> Can I ask a general question?
> 
> If a dog lunged at you the way the dog did in the video, do you feel that you would "defend" yourself by doing something that would cause injury to the dog like kicking or hitting the dog, or do you feel that you would allow the dog to follow through with the lunge to find out if the dog was actually aggressive, or just bluffing?


If I had the owner on-hand? Well I wouldn't do anything but be on guard while the owner got his dog. 

Like in the video.. say no owner is around. If I reached at a strange dog and she jumped at me once going "BAKC OFF!" and backed away from me again, I wouldn't reach for him a second time. 

Say I was out walking and being harassed by a large Rottweiler, and if in all my dog -know-how I couldn't fend him off or understand his body language so I could see what he wants me to do, or if he just attacked out of nowhere - yes I would defend myself. 

There were two American Bulldog looking boys running loose in the neighborhood. I followed them on foot while I sent my brother in a truck to track down the owner - who lived a few streets over. Once I had the tired dogs stop, finally, because they turned to face me on the sidewalk of a busy road, I kept calm.. I KNEW if I made the wrong move, like aggressing at them, or running, or reaching for a collar, I was going to be mauled by two intact male dogs who probably weighed more than I. I kept my posture firm but not aggressive, and in and even "I'm teaching you something" calm voice gave them simple commands to distract them, like "Sit" "Watch me" anything he might have taught them. Also asking if they wanted to "go". They were agitated, growling, staring at me, but once one of the boys sat down on my command, the other calmed a bit too. When the owner came around the corner in the back of the truck, the dogs changed so much I felt comfortable lifting one into the truck bed to take them home. 

I guess if I was a police officer who didn't know dog body language both of them would be dead. The owner charged (as he should've been anyway) and another headline.
When are they going to start training all public worker (officers!) to safely handle and understand dogs?


----------



## jae

Zahnburg said:


> I have decided that I will no longer supply police nor Federal agencies with any dog that I have bred, own or have trained. I will not condone nor will I be a party to supplying dogs to these agencies that intend to use these weapons against peaceful American citizens.


However small it may be, this is a step in the right direction.


----------



## Gretchen

Shaolin said:


> I never said it was. I was just ranting about people taping emergency scenes like this in general and used a personal experience as an example of why I was frustrated by it.
> 
> Yes, everyone has the right to take video of whatever they want to as long as they are on public property and I never said I was against it...I just have a personal frustration with it. Nothing like trying to do your job and someone has a cellphone camera and they're standing right on top of you while taping/taking pictures, then the minute you ask them to step back so you can work, they start screaming that you are infringing upon their rights, yet you can't do your job effectively because they are standing right in the middle of things.
> 
> Where do your rights end and mine begin?
> 
> 
> But that's very OT and if you want to continue this particular conversation, feel free to PM me.


Shaolin - I understand your point of view. My husband is a tow truck driver, often at accidents or arrest scenes. Yes he's used to people standing around and watching or filming, but it still can be unnerving. Last night he was at a crime scene and the press was getting in the way, when you are distracted by bystanders it puts everyone's safety at risk. Six months ago we had two officers killed in the middle of the afternoon, many people were outside, curious as to what was happening, suddenly bullets were flying and the firemen standing by had to pull some bystanders to safety.


----------



## GSD2

This was on the news last night with the headline: 'By standers outraged.' They interviewed a witness and the owner. He said as his dog lay dying he looked back at him, because the dog didn't want him to die, that's what the dog thought was going to happen to him, he felt, speaking in tears.  How sad. The police would not make a statement on camera, but did say something about an investigation. They said he was interfering with the police by blaring loud music from his car and getting in the way. They were investigating an armed robbery. 

It turns out that this man sued the police department last March. 

He was really, really stupid. He never should have been there, with or without a dog. At first I thought he was really young, but no he is 52 years old. He paid the ultimate price for being stupid. I do feel a 'get out of here' would have been heeded by this man as he knew to walk away as soon as they came toward him. 

A sad, sad story.  One that has caught media attention.


----------



## APBTLove

Shaolin said:


> If I were a cop, I'd never tell someone to call off a dog. Have you seen the video from the late 90's where the woman was to surrender two dogs to AC? The AC officer told the woman to verbally command one of the dogs that was not complying. In that instant, the woman commanded her dog to attack and attack it did, seriously injuring the AC officer. All it takes is one word and a trained dog would be all over someone mauling the individual.


The only difference between the video depicting that fat witch sending her aggressive dog out of her house to attack an unarmed (and small!) Animal Control Officer, and this video, is everything. I can pretty much bet than if the owner had walked, handcuffed and all, back to his car and opened the door, the dog would have jumped right in. The officers and their firearms could have stood back in case the dog looped around and turned into Cujo or something. Or if the owner decided to whip out his nine and busta cap from behind his back. 


And please, nobody say the cops didn't have time to think. They are trained to think and remain calm, and collected, and logical in tense dangerous situations. I have an LEO sister and that would just be insulting to say the officers couldn't have come up with a better plan in the time they had. The bottom line is they did not care a bit, they didn't even offer up a kill shot.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Was the owner of the dog charged with anything?

In blue, exactly and why did the police wait so long, until he started to leave to confront him if the interference was so bad?

I say baloney. The police decided to escalate when they did not need to.



GSD2 said:


> This was on the news last night with the headline: 'By standers outraged.' They interviewed a witness and the owner. He said as his dog lay dying he looked back at him, because the dog didn't want him to die, that's what the dog thought was going to happen to him, he felt, speaking in tears.  How sad. The police would not make a statement on camera, but did say something about an investigation. They said he was interfering with the police by blaring loud music from his car and getting in the way. They were investigating an armed robbery.
> 
> It turns out that this man sued the police department last March.
> 
> He was really, really stupid. He never should have been there, with or without a dog. At first I thought he was really young, but no he is 52 years old. He paid the ultimate price for being stupid. I do feel a 'get out of here' would have been heeded by this man as he knew to walk away as soon as they came toward him.
> 
> A sad, sad story.  One that has caught media attention.


----------



## Shaolin

Gwenhwyfair said:


> I understand your frustration and dated an EMT for a period of time and heard some stories similar. The only problem I have with the mention of HIPPA and those 'rights' is it's OT and not comparable to the situation of a dog being shot so that's why I made the comment.
> 
> No worries on my side.
> 
> (btw hope you and your handsome Finn are doing well!)


Yeah. It was completely off topic. It was just a rant and not well placed. It's just one of those *rage* topics that make me want to bash my keyboard in.

And we are doing fantastic.  Hope you and yours are doing just as well. 



Gwenhwyfair said:


> So if we look at this a little more clinically what exactly did the man do that was against the law? Based on the evidence we watched nothing.
> 
> Was there a bit of a swagger about him with his dog while videoing? Yes. Is that against the law? No.
> 
> In a way he was 'pushing' his authority by videoing so close to the scene but technically he didn't cross any lines.
> 
> It was only AFTER he started to go to his car and leave did the police decide to push their 'authority'.
> 
> It certainly is fair to say this man exercised poor judgement but that poor judgement was NOT breaking any laws. Therefore the police bear the brunt of responsibility for the following reason: They made a *choice to escalate and use force when it was not necessary.* Remember the man was leaving, he did not break any laws nor confront or otherwise get in the way of the officers. He got close to the patrol cars but did NOT go past them.
> 
> This would be akin to having a verbal argument, *you walking away*, the other person physically grabbing you and YOU being blamed as the aggressor. You may have made a poor judgement in having the verbal argument but legally you did nothing wrong and then tried to walk away. Why should you be held accountable for the escalation of the incident?
> 
> The only difference is the police are far too often allowed to be ABOVE the law.
> 
> There is a video that I can't post because it will become way too political but it shows an officer very artfully DEescalating a situation.
> 
> Mrs K alluded to this in another dog shot by police thread. The police in our country seem to be falling into the habit of escalating situations when they have other options, there's an impatience about them an easy willingness to throw their weight around where it's not their place to do so. That is wrong and it will continue to erode the trust citizens place in our Police depts.


You are absolutely correct. 

He didn't break any law but the law of common sense. The only reason I am saying that both the officers and the person are to blame is because neither one did anything to diffuse or calm the situation...both groups are well at fault for that. There were a million and one things wrong with the entire event:

IMHO, he never should have stopped to record the scene.
IMHO, he never should have taken his dog out of the car if he wanted to exercise his right to record.

I don't know/couldn't tell what the cops said to him or what he said to the cops to make him suddenly put the dog away and them to come over. Not to assume anything, but I would surmise that he possibly said something inflammatory, which set the cops off and they responded in turn. Once again, IMHO, both held some responsibility for it moving to that point and that's wrong. The cops could've ignored the jeering and he didn't have to say anything to the cops. Yes, we have the freedom to say whatever we want to, but that doesn't mean we should be  about it.

The gentleman immediately submitted as he assumed the position and everything seemed okay, but because he started to do the 'what are you arresting me for?' routine and started getting worked up, and in return the cops escalated their tactics.

As I said, the blame for this situation can be passed around to everyone. The cops are not above the fact that they obviously contributed to the situation, but the gentleman did as well. 

I agree. Far too often 'bad' officers hide behind the badge, the power, and the authority. They will forever be the ones on the news tainting the badge.

The only thing I wonder...and this is just pure speculation, but I wonder if he started 'behind the line' but as more emergency vehicles showed up, he suddenly became in the middle of it. I think I see another cop or two running down the sidewalk on the right hand side of the screen. That is pure speculation, though, and has no bearing on anything...just wondering.




APBTLove said:


> If I had the owner on-hand? Well I wouldn't do anything but be on guard while the owner got his dog.
> 
> Like in the video.. say no owner is around. If I reached at a strange dog and she jumped at me once going "BAKC OFF!" and backed away from me again, I wouldn't reach for him a second time.
> 
> Say I was out walking and being harassed by a large Rottweiler, and if in all my dog -know-how I couldn't fend him off or understand his body language so I could see what he wants me to do, or if he just attacked out of nowhere - yes I would defend myself.
> 
> There were two American Bulldog looking boys running loose in the neighborhood. I followed them on foot while I sent my brother in a truck to track down the owner - who lived a few streets over. Once I had the tired dogs stop, finally, because they turned to face me on the sidewalk of a busy road, I kept calm.. I KNEW if I made the wrong move, like aggressing at them, or running, or reaching for a collar, I was going to be mauled by two intact male dogs who probably weighed more than I. I kept my posture firm but not aggressive, and in and even "I'm teaching you something" calm voice gave them simple commands to distract them, like "Sit" "Watch me" anything he might have taught them. Also asking if they wanted to "go". They were agitated, growling, staring at me, but once one of the boys sat down on my command, the other calmed a bit too. When the owner came around the corner in the back of the truck, the dogs changed so much I felt comfortable lifting one into the truck bed to take them home.
> 
> I guess if I was a police officer who didn't know dog body language both of them would be dead. The owner charged (as he should've been anyway) and another headline.
> When are they going to start training all public worker (officers!) to safely handle and understand dogs?


First of all, thank you for the honest answer. 

Yes, I think all public safety providers (LEOs, Fire Fighters, EMS workers) should be taught basic K9 body language...but do you think that a bunch of people who took a...and I'm just making up an example...a two week class on basic K9 behavior could end up being on the receiving end of a lot more bites?

You now have a group of individuals who think they are the next 'Dog Whisperer' and while they might be able to diffuse a just nervous dog, a dog with true aggression might be able to get off a bite or more because the individual is trying to be 'calm assertive' and playing behaviorist. It could also go the other direction and now these 'trained animal behaviorists' now have something to hide behind when they blow away Fido in someone's yard: "From my training, the dog appeared to be aggressive and I had to defend myself from bodily harm." 

Case closed.

So, what type of dog handling training do you think they should have? It's just a general question, no snarkiness involved...just wondering.


----------



## ken k

APBTLove said:


> And please, nobody say the cops didn't have time to think. They are trained to think and remain calm, and collected, and logical in tense dangerous situations.



and thats why they shot up LA, chasing the good cop gone bad?, or in NY? or in Boston?


----------



## Shaolin

APBTLove said:


> The only difference between the video depicting that fat witch sending her aggressive dog out of her house to attack an unarmed (and small!) Animal Control Officer, and this video, is everything. I can pretty much bet than if the owner had walked, handcuffed and all, back to his car and opened the door, the dog would have jumped right in. The officers and their firearms could have stood back in case the dog looped around and turned into Cujo or something. Or if the owner decided to whip out his nine and busta cap from behind his back.


I was making reference to the video in response to someone saying to *call the dog off*. If I were a cop, I'd never let someone *verbally command* a dog in that type of situation, but if the suspect was being respectful and calm, I would have no issue with saying to him, "Please go physically contain your dog".


----------



## Bridget

This is just horrible. I had to wait a while before I could even respond in a half-way rational manner. Clearly, there was no excuse for this at all. And it's a moot issue what I would do if a dog lunged at me blah, blah, blah...because I wouldn't be in the situation, arresting someone who wasn't doing anything against the law, which we can clearly see. In fact, the appropriate response from mangled cop would be "Gosh, I shouldn't have done this and I'm got bit, which is really a good thing because it will HELP ME REMEMBER not to arrest innocent bystanders in the future!" 

I would like to know from those of you who know police officers well, married to one, whatever, is there any peer pressure over these incidents? Any fury from the good part of the police establishment over the bad apples giving a bad name to cops? Any pressure from within for the firing of these?


----------



## Courtney

I cannot watch the video. But found this article on-line.

VIDEO | Police in Hawthorne, CA face criticism after shooting dog | wkyc.com


----------



## Jax08

> Rosby was arrested for Obstruction of Justice for playing loud music, walking a large dog, and getting too close to officers according to police.
> The statement said all of that in its entirety distracted officers from their dangerous work.



THAT is the best they could come up with? 



Obstruction of Justice: How was he obstructing?
Walking a large dog: And WHY would that be illegal?
Playing loud music: Unless it's after 10pm, I don't believe that is illegal either
Getting to close to officers: He was almost a block away from there. At least a half a block and not within the perimeter of the police cars
Distracting the officers: ok. so they had to look at him to make sure he was not a threat. But still did not do anything illegal.


----------



## GatorBytes

Courtney said:


> I cannot watch the video. But found this article on-line.
> 
> VIDEO | Police in Hawthorne, CA face criticism after shooting dog | wkyc.com


 
So this guy took it upon himself to *police* the Police. Or perhaps fishing for evidence he could use in his own lawsuits. He antagonized this situation and was a distraction to the police while they were investigating a potentially dangerous situation. 

Now his dog is dead.

From Courtney's link: Rosby says he was on his way home from the dog park when he noticed the police barricades. He was videotaping police with his cell phone. 
You hear his car radio and then he yells out to police. Rosby told reporters he was trying to make sure police weren't violating anyone's civil rights.

I maintain my earlier comment. Stupid owner.


----------



## RipleyCWynn

Bridget said:


> ...because I wouldn't be in the situation, arresting someone who wasn't doing anything against the law, which we can clearly see.


Just for clarification because I think this is getting lost - the gentleman who was arrested wasn't arrested for filming the officers. He was arrested on suspicion of obstruction of justice because his car was blaring music next to a police investigation of aggravated assault. The video doesn't show that the police had already asked him to turn the music down so that their officers would be able to hear better and the man didn't do it. In other articles the man has admitted to not immediately complying with the officer's direction, so this is one thing that both sides of the story agree with.

That being said, there was no reason for the poor dog to be shot (IMHO). The officer completely overreacted to a dog who wasn't even being aggressive. The poor thing was confused and upset, and understandably so. The owner should NEVER have put his dog in that position. It seems to me that with the number of lawsuits he's made against the police, as well as his willingness to submit to arrest, that his ultimate goal wasn't the dog's welfare but the furthering of his own agenda (I'm making no assumption as to whether his suits are valid or not, everyone knows the reputation of the LAPD). What would have happened to the dog if it was locked up in the car when he was arrested? How soon would someone have come to let it out? 

The fact of the matter is that this person should have complied with the police, and even more importantly, should have taken a minute to think about the dog whose life he was responsible for. The police, too, should have been calm and collected enough to diffuse the situation without discharging a firearm at a non-aggressive dog in a public place. If someone doesn't have the capacity to determine what situations call for lethal force then he or she should not have the responsibility of carrying a gun, period. The blame falls on both sides of the fence and it's heartbreaking that the dog has to pay the price.


----------



## Jax08

Do a search on this police department and complaints. There might have been a reason the guy made that choice. It wasn't the most brilliant one and he could have been more discreet like everyone else taping it but there might have been a reason.


----------



## Msmaria

GSD5150 said:


> I agree. We do not know if words were said. He WAS being obnoxious as all ****. I think we can ALL agree with that.
> 
> It gets my blood going when I hear and see these types of stories. Claw wouldn't necessarily try to "protect" me, at least I don't think so. I think he would rush towards the cops for a nice pet, he's way to social for his own good. He let our maintenance guy walk inside of our apartment before he even formally greeted him. Dillinger on the other hand would try to save his momma. I think videos like this should make all of us more aware as pet owners to run from situations like this as if it's the plague. Have multiple signs up ( although that hasn't stopped some cops) if there are cops and even helicopters looking for someone we should bring our dogs inside and so on and so fourth.
> 
> This isn't something any of us anticipate in the heat of the moment but it's something we should all be aware of. There are plenty of stories floating around to have it imbedded in our brains now. Does this video and others similar disgust me? You bet! Can we prevent things like this from happening? We sure as **** can try.
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App



"obnoxious as ****". you said. and it gets your blood boiling. My oh my. LOL No we cant all agree on that.

I guess you see what you want to see. This guy was videotaping and maybe the cops didnt see the others behind him taping as some people arent so obvious. But this in no way makes this guy in the wrong, no matter how obvious he was. Its his right as an american. If you lived in a neighborhood where there were police harrassment and killings on a daily and weekly basis you might see it differently. You might see it as your tired of having cops run you into your house while they shoot your neighbor or friend in the back. Only the bad cops have to worry about being videotaped.


----------



## Msmaria

GatorBytes said:


> So this guy took it upon himself to *police* the Police. Or perhaps fishing for evidence he could use in his own lawsuits. He antagonized this situation and was a distraction to the police while they were investigating a potentially dangerous situation.
> 
> Now his dog is dead.
> 
> From Courtney's link: Rosby says he was on his way home from the dog park when he noticed the police barricades. He was videotaping police with his cell phone.
> You hear his car radio and then he yells out to police. Rosby told reporters he was trying to make sure police weren't violating anyone's civil rights.
> 
> I maintain my earlier comment. Stupid owner.



You pick out what you want. You forgot to mention that when the officer recognized him as someone who has a complaint against him. Thats when the officer called the man over to him.

These are the charges: something you also forgot to mention in your story above:

Rosby was arrested for Obstruction of Justice for playing loud music, walking a large dog, and getting too close to officers according to police.

Really..charged for walking a large dog, thats ridiculous. These charges are trumped up charges. He was obviously being harrassed because he made a complaint against them. they could have asked him to turn his music down and send him on his way.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Msmaria, it looks that way..the officer was looking for revenge?? (from Courtney's link)



> The 52 year old has six complaints against Hawthorne Police and has even *filed a lawsuit alleging that one officer broke his rib*.
> 
> Rosby says that *one of the officers named in the lawsuit spotted him*.
> "And I saw him and he noticed me, he pointed at me." said Rosby. That's when Rosby said two officers started walking toward him so he put his dog in the car.
> 
> You see him turn around and let officers handcuff him. That's when Max jumped out of the car. "That dog would not have lunged at you if you wouldn't have approached him like that, I know it, I know my dog." said Rosby.


I was wondering why the officers at first seemed to be ignoring him then suddenly, as Rosby was leaving, decided to stop him. 

BTW - They are law enforcement, enforcing existing laws, they aren't supposed to make laws up as the go along (walking a large dog is against the law? loud music during the day?) This is what happened to a friend of mine last week. 

Maybe Rosby isn't telling the truth about a broken rib but that doesn't meant the police can create new laws on the street corner to suit their agenda.




GatorBytes said:


> So this guy took it upon himself to *police* the Police. Or perhaps fishing for evidence he could use in his own lawsuits. He antagonized this situation and was a distraction to the police while they were investigating a potentially dangerous situation.
> 
> Now his dog is dead.
> 
> From Courtney's link: Rosby says he was on his way home from the dog park when he noticed the police barricades. He was videotaping police with his cell phone.
> You hear his car radio and then he yells out to police. Rosby told reporters he was trying to make sure police weren't violating anyone's civil rights.
> 
> I maintain my earlier comment. Stupid owner.


----------



## crackem

Only in America, land of the free

I don't understand why we got here. We have a large segment of the population that thinks it's ok for the gov't to spy on its citizens regardless of probable cause, subject themselves to being videotaped from the sky, from space, from every traffic camera etc and think it's perfectly acceptable, yet when the idea of taping an agent of the gov't behaving badly, people think those doing the videotaping are at fault?????

Sorry, the cops were wrong, wrong, wrong,on this. Completely and totally ****ing wrong! I'm usually on the defending side when it comes to these things, not this time. Not even close.


----------



## boomer11

hahah yeah right. they were harassing him because they knew he made a few complaints. they were in a potential dangerous situation that even included a swat car but hey theres that guy that made a complaint! lets go bother him instead! i like how people believe everything that this black guy says. like the cop really wanted to come harass him. they were carrying around assault rifles! the situation was serious and they were just trying to do their job.

if i was a cop in a potentially dangerous situation and was trying to do my job and someone comes up music blaring and walking all around the place like he owned it, i'd be pissed too. did you see anyone else dumb enough to walk that close to the situation? no they had enough respect to stay away or in their yard. this owner is an idiot and too bad the dog had to die for it.


----------



## crackem

yeah, he was so dangerous and interfering so much, they ignore him until he's getting in his car to leave  and we wonder who the police state continues to grow


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

We're hanging in! Long hot and rainy GA summer!

Keep me posted on your plans btw.  If you end up in my neck o the woods you and your beautiful white shepherd have a welcoming place to train! 

In blue, see that's where this whole thing goes off the rails.

Rosby was walking away to his car to leave, he was diffusing the situation, by leaving!

The officers are there in a professional capacity, therefore the duty was on them to de-escalate, instead they chose to escalate in what apparently is some sour grapes between the one officer and Rosby over a complaint that he filed.

Then add in being charged with 'walking a large dog'?

Rosby may have lacked better judgement but he at least tried to diffuse the situation by leaving whereas the officer(s) are the ones who decided they couldn't leave well enough alone.

I've seen good cops stay calm and NOT escalate in much more tense situations then this, behaving very professionally. This is not one of those cases.

If anything they have probably bolstered Rosby's case. 



Shaolin said:


> Yeah. It was completely off topic. It was just a rant and not well placed. It's just one of those *rage* topics that make me want to bash my keyboard in.
> 
> And we are doing fantastic.  Hope you and yours are doing just as well.
> 
> 
> 
> You are absolutely correct.
> 
> He didn't break any law but the law of common sense. The only reason I am saying that both the officers and *the person are to blame is because neither one did anything to diffuse or calm the situation*...both groups are well at fault for that. There were a million and one things wrong with the entire event:
> 
> IMHO, he never should have stopped to record the scene.
> IMHO, he never should have taken his dog out of the car if he wanted to exercise his right to record.
> 
> I don't know/couldn't tell what the cops said to him or what he said to the cops to make him suddenly put the dog away and them to come over. Not to assume anything, but I would surmise that he possibly said something inflammatory, which set the cops off and they responded in turn. Once again, IMHO, both held some responsibility for it moving to that point and that's wrong. The cops could've ignored the jeering and he didn't have to say anything to the cops. Yes, we have the freedom to say whatever we want to, but that doesn't mean we should be  about it.
> 
> The gentleman immediately submitted as he assumed the position and everything seemed okay, but because he started to do the 'what are you arresting me for?' routine and started getting worked up, and in return the cops escalated their tactics.
> 
> As I said, the blame for this situation can be passed around to everyone. The cops are not above the fact that they obviously contributed to the situation, but the gentleman did as well.
> 
> I agree. Far too often 'bad' officers hide behind the badge, the power, and the authority. They will forever be the ones on the news tainting the badge.
> 
> The only thing I wonder...and this is just pure speculation, but I wonder if he started 'behind the line' but as more emergency vehicles showed up, he suddenly became in the middle of it. I think I see another cop or two running down the sidewalk on the right hand side of the screen. That is pure speculation, though, and has no bearing on anything...just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, thank you for the honest answer.
> 
> Yes, I think all public safety providers (LEOs, Fire Fighters, EMS workers) should be taught basic K9 body language...but do you think that a bunch of people who took a...and I'm just making up an example...a two week class on basic K9 behavior could end up being on the receiving end of a lot more bites?
> 
> You now have a group of individuals who think they are the next 'Dog Whisperer' and while they might be able to diffuse a just nervous dog, a dog with true aggression might be able to get off a bite or more because the individual is trying to be 'calm assertive' and playing behaviorist. It could also go the other direction and now these 'trained animal behaviorists' now have something to hide behind when they blow away Fido in someone's yard: "From my training, the dog appeared to be aggressive and I had to defend myself from bodily harm."
> 
> Case closed.
> 
> So, what type of dog handling training do you think they should have? It's just a general question, no snarkiness involved...just wondering.


----------



## selzer

Maybe this guy has complaints against the police department because the police there are corrupt, untrained, or simply bad cops. Where I live, maybe if you were black, that could happen. I am not saying that it does happen. But it could. 

By the way, I don't know why someone is insistant in calling this man a "gentleman." It kind of rubs me the wrong way. If the guy was a white guy, we would say the man, or the guy. Gentleman suggests either some type of nobility in a class-system, or people in suits and ties. It is not that it just does not suit the black guy with music coming out of his car and a Rottweiler in tow, but it almost an anti-racial slur -- like specifically trying to denegrate the guy by saying the opposite. Like when my brother freaked out when my head was cut open, and my dad was calling him a genious and a brain surgeon, because he was freaking me out. 

So it's a man, white, black or purple with green spots. 

Gator-bytes, this particular incident illustrates for me that we do need people who are willing to police the cops. Who are willing to guard the civil-rights of individuals or groups. 

I just do not fault the dog owner at all. I really don't care if the man was yelling obscenities at them. There is a reason cops are not all beloved by everyone. If they can't handle that better than this scenario then they are in the wrong profession. And firing these guys is the best possible thing for this department to do. 

"Rosby was arrested for Obstruction of Justice for playing loud music, walking a large dog, and getting too close to officers according to police." Maybe the music was distracting and he should have turned it down. But the rest of this statement is total baloney. Walking a large dog???? I suppose I better go turn myself into the authorities. And getting too close to officer? We watched the entire video -- he was not anywhere near the officers -- so yet another lie. 

And people wonder why people feel the need to police the police! 

As a white person born in the late sixties, and raised for the most part in a small village, I largely missed the civil rights movement and the atrocities done due to racism. And, frankly, I like to think that that is for the most part behind us. I don't see it. I am not black so I am not specifically looking for it. And where I live, and where I go, it simply isn't blatant. Unfortunately, this incident really suggests that it is not so gone as I would like to think. 

I hope this guy sues these rotten cops and the city both. Even police departments need to answer to someone. And the city is allowing this sort of thing to happen. 

Poor dog, poor guy. If I had two nickels to rub together, I would donate to his legal fund.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

The officers that *stopped Rosby from leaving*......<<< important point, walked a good distance down the side walk to get to him...didn't seem to be to concerned with anything but settling a score that had nothing to do with the incident at hand.




boomer11 said:


> hahah yeah right. they were harassing him because they knew he made a few complaints. they were in a potential dangerous situation that even included a swat car but hey theres that guy that made a complaint! lets go bother him instead! i like how people believe everything that this black guy says. like the cop really wanted to come harass him. they were carrying around assault rifles! the situation was serious and they were just trying to do their job.
> 
> if i was a cop in a potentially dangerous situation and was trying to do my job and someone comes up music blaring and walking all around the place like he owned it, i'd be pissed too. did you see anyone else dumb enough to walk that close to the situation? no they had enough respect to stay away or in their yard. this owner is an idiot and too bad the dog had to die for it.


----------



## selzer

boomer11 said:


> hahah yeah right. they were harassing him because they knew he made a few complaints. they were in a potential dangerous situation that even included a swat car but hey theres that guy that made a complaint! lets go bother him instead! i like how people believe everything that this black guy says. like the cop really wanted to come harass him. they were carrying around assault rifles! the situation was serious and they were just trying to do their job.
> 
> if i was a cop in a potentially dangerous situation and was trying to do my job and someone comes up music blaring *and walking all around the place like he owned it*, i'd be pissed too. did you see anyone else dumb enough to walk that close to the situation? no they had enough respect to stay away or in their yard. this owner is an idiot and too bad the dog had to die for it.


Uhm, well, he does. He was in a public place and he was a member of the public. Who does own the place? Who has a right to be there? Who has a right to walk around? He was visiting a dog park, sounds like a local. Why shouldn't he feel like he owns the place? He probably helps pay those jerks' salaries.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

:thumbup::thumbup:




selzer said:


> Uhm, well, he does. He was in a public place and he was a member of the public. Who does own the place? Who has a right to be there? Who has a right to walk around? He was visiting a dog park, sounds like a local. Why shouldn't he feel like he owns the place?


----------



## Ares God Of War

I saw this on fb..so sad I couldnt watch the rest when he started to shoot the dog..the dog doesnt know the difference with ppl.. all he knew was that someone was messing with his owner and he had to defend him 

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Fade2Black

Jax08 said:


> THAT is the best they could come up with?
> 
> 
> 
> Obstruction of Justice: How was he obstructing?
> Walking a large dog: And WHY would that be illegal?
> Playing loud music: Unless it's after 10pm, I don't believe that is illegal either
> Getting to close to officers: He was almost a block away from there. At least a half a block and not within the perimeter of the police cars
> Distracting the officers: ok. so they had to look at him to make sure he was not a threat. But still did not do anything illegal.



This is just standard operating procedure for police these days. When in the wrong make something up....

They know most people they make these bogus charges against don't have the $$$ to defend themselves. Then later the fake charges at times go away in exchange for letting the trigger happy thug police getting away with what they do every day....


----------



## Msmaria

boomer11 said:


> hahah yeah right. they were harassing him because they knew he made a few complaints. they were in a potential dangerous situation that even included a swat car but hey theres that guy that made a complaint! lets go bother him instead! i like how people believe everything that this black guy says. like the cop really wanted to come harass him. they were carrying around assault rifles! the situation was serious and they were just trying to do their job.
> 
> if i was a cop in a potentially dangerous situation and was trying to do my job and someone comes up music blaring and walking all around the place like he owned it, i'd be pissed too. did you see anyone else dumb enough to walk that close to the situation? no they had enough respect to stay away or in their yard. this owner is an idiot and too bad the dog had to die for it.


Oh please, the cops pull their guns out in LA for everything. And no were not believing the guy because hes black..What kind of racist remark is that. your post is wrong on so many levels..Im not even gonna say what im thinking about you


----------



## KZoppa

My husband and I actually got into an argument about this because instead of watching the video and reading the info on the subject, he's choosing to believe some idiot at work about the subject. He refuses to watch the video so I'm mad at him for not forming his own opinion lol.


----------



## Bridget

We can see what happened with our own eyes. Dog owner is standing quite a ways away, dog not causing any trouble either, owner starts to leave, police come after him. I mean unless, anyone is suggesting that the sequence was somehow tampered with, we can see what happened. It isn't a he-said-she-said and we really don't know who's telling the truth thing, right? It's on tape for crying out loud!! The only concession I can make to give the police benefit of the doubt is that I can't hear what was being said. But really it doesn't matter anyway, as they are supposed to be trained to deescalate, not take offense and escalate things, as they obviously did. That is childish and unprofessional.


----------



## KZoppa

Gwenhwyfair said:


> So if we look at this a little more clinically what exactly did the man do that was against the law? Based on the evidence we watched nothing.
> 
> Was there a bit of a swagger about him with his dog while videoing? Yes. Is that against the law? No.
> 
> In a way he was 'pushing' his authority by videoing so close to the scene but technically he didn't cross any lines.
> 
> It was only AFTER he started to go to his car and leave did the police decide to push their 'authority'.
> 
> It certainly is fair to say this man exercised poor judgement but that poor judgement was NOT breaking any laws. Therefore the police bear the brunt of responsibility for the following reason: They made a *choice to escalate and use force when it was not necessary.* Remember the man was leaving, he did not break any laws nor confront or otherwise get in the way of the officers. He got close to the patrol cars but did NOT go past them.
> 
> This would be akin to having a verbal argument, *you walking away*, the other person physically grabbing you and YOU being blamed as the aggressor. You may have made a poor judgement in having the verbal argument but legally you did nothing wrong and then tried to walk away. Why should you be held accountable for the escalation of the incident?
> 
> The only difference is the police are far too often allowed to be ABOVE the law.
> 
> There is a video that I can't post because it will become way too political but it shows an officer very artfully DEescalating a situation.
> 
> Mrs K alluded to this in another dog shot by police thread. The police in our country seem to be falling into the habit of escalating situations when they have other options, there's an impatience about them an easy willingness to throw their weight around where it's not their place to do so. That is wrong and it will continue to erode the trust citizens place in our Police depts.


 
This is exactly what I tried to explain to my husband. the guy didn't do anything wrong. He got closer than he probably should have but he didn't break any rules. My husband refuses to listen to reason on this.


----------



## Shaolin

selzer said:


> Maybe this guy has complaints against the police department because the police there are corrupt, untrained, or simply bad cops. Where I live, maybe if you were black, that could happen. I am not saying that it does happen. But it could.
> 
> By the way, I don't know why someone is insistant in calling this man a "gentleman." It kind of rubs me the wrong way. If the guy was a white guy, we would say the man, or the guy. Gentleman suggests either some type of nobility in a class-system, or people in suits and ties. It is not that it just does not suit the black guy with music coming out of his car and a Rottweiler in tow, but it almost an anti-racial slur -- like specifically trying to denegrate the guy by saying the opposite. Like when my brother freaked out when my head was cut open, and my dad was calling him a genious and a brain surgeon, because he was freaking me out.
> 
> So it's a man, white, black or purple with green spots.
> 
> Gator-bytes, this particular incident illustrates for me that we do need people who are willing to police the cops. Who are willing to guard the civil-rights of individuals or groups.
> 
> I just do not fault the dog owner at all. I really don't care if the man was yelling obscenities at them. There is a reason cops are not all beloved by everyone. If they can't handle that better than this scenario then they are in the wrong profession. And firing these guys is the best possible thing for this department to do.
> 
> "Rosby was arrested for Obstruction of Justice for playing loud music, walking a large dog, and getting too close to officers according to police." Maybe the music was distracting and he should have turned it down. But the rest of this statement is total baloney. Walking a large dog???? I suppose I better go turn myself into the authorities. And getting too close to officer? We watched the entire video -- he was not anywhere near the officers -- so yet another lie.
> 
> And people wonder why people feel the need to police the police!
> 
> As a white person born in the late sixties, and raised for the most part in a small village, I largely missed the civil rights movement and the atrocities done due to racism. And, frankly, I like to think that that is for the most part behind us. I don't see it. I am not black so I am not specifically looking for it. And where I live, and where I go, it simply isn't blatant. Unfortunately, this incident really suggests that it is not so gone as I would like to think.
> 
> I hope this guy sues these rotten cops and the city both. Even police departments need to answer to someone. And the city is allowing this sort of thing to happen.
> 
> Poor dog, poor guy. If I had two nickels to rub together, I would donate to his legal fund.




Sent from Petguide.com Free App


I was calling him a gentleman because it's polite and that's how I was raised. Same way if you were in a video and I'd call you a lady or woman. No classism or denigrating, just talking the way I was raised.


----------



## wdkiser

Seems like both sides of this are watching with blinders on. 

The guy was antagonizing the cops. He had his music blaring and he did yell where are the black cops, plus other things that I couldn't tell what he said. He wasn't leaving peacefully, he turned his back and then yelled something over his shoulder. He saw them coming and then put his dog in the car and walked very brazenly towards the cops, just daring them. He wanted something to happen, just probably not this. Someone above mentioned he had a lawsuit pending against them, so there is some history here, too.

I would think the cop that shot the dog would be disciplined, but not because he shot the dog, but because of the fashion he discharged his weapon with the crowd of people around. Other bystanders could have been hit, you can see early on there were other people also shooting video to the left of the guy that got arrested. You can't see them during the shooting, but unless they left the scene, they would be in the line of fire.


----------



## Rainer

wdkiser said:


> The guy was antagonizing the cops. He had his music blaring and he did yell where are the black cops, plus other things that I couldn't tell what he said. He wasn't leaving peacefully, he turned his back and then yelled something over his shoulder. He saw them coming and then put his dog in the car and walked very brazenly towards the cops, just daring them. He wanted something to happen, just probably not this. Someone above mentioned he had a lawsuit pending against them, so there is some history here, too.


I thought the same thing when I watched the video. The guy seemed to get out of the car with the sole purpose of antagonizing the police officers. He was brazenly, and I think rather rudely, throwing his phone around, walking back and forth...just totally acting like a jerk. I find it interesting that no one commented on how the guys shooting the actual footage were in disbelief over the dog owners actions. The dog owner was trying to elicit a reaction (you can argue either for his own gain [law suit against the PD] or to "police" the police). Either way, his dog paid the price for his owner's arrogance. 

Edited to add: It seems that even though there were other people at the scene shooting footage...they were keeping a great deal more distance away from the crime scene than this man.

The police should have asked him to leave. I don't believe the cops are in the right and I DO believe they should be held accountable for the incorrect handling of the situation.


----------



## Jack's Dad

From the site city scout.

Hawthorne's crime index is 23 with 100 being the safest.

Median crimes per square mile 454. the Sate of CA 85. The U.S national average is 39.6. 

It is notorious gang territory. 

I wonder if the imperfect police are not just a little edgy there. 

Oh that's right they are supposed to be above being human.

I could pretty much guess that most of the cop haters would not want to live in Hawthorne.

I was born and raised down there and know what it's really like.

Sorry to interrupt the never ending cops are jerks and should know and understand everything about dog behavior etc....


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

I noticed what the person videoing from a greater distance said.

The thing is - it does *not *matter one dang little bit.

I think most here agree Rosby was putting on some swagger and that his judgement wasn't the best BUT he did *not* actually cross any kind of LEGAL line. That's why we have laws that define where the line is. We don't move the line around to suit a police officer's personal agenda, or at least that's not how the founders intended our justice system to work when they wrote in the protections for freedom of speech, protections from cruel and unusual punishment, protection from unwarranted search and seizures.

The fact that the cops have to invent new laws on the fly to charge him with, like 'walking a large dog'  illustrates that Rosby wasn't actually breaking any laws. Does anyone know of a law that limits the size of dog when can walk on leash? C'mon!

It's not against the law to be a jerk and when it does become against the law then kiss our freedom of speech goodbye.

If someone calls you names and you slug them, then YOU are in the wrong, not the jerk calling you names. 



Rainer said:


> I thought the same thing when I watched the video. The guy seemed to get out of the car with the sole purpose of antagonizing the police officers. He was brazenly, and I think rather rudely, throwing his phone around, walking back and forth...just totally acting like a jerk. I find it interesting that no one commented on how the guys shooting the actual footage were in disbelief over the dog owners actions. The dog owner was trying to elicit a reaction (you can argue either for his own gain [law suit against the PD] or to "police" the police). Either way, his dog paid the price for his owner's arrogance.
> 
> Edited to add: It seems that even though there were other people at the scene shooting footage...they were keeping a great deal more distance away from the crime scene than this man.
> 
> The police should have asked him to leave. I don't believe the cops are in the right and I DO believe they should be held accountable for the incorrect handling of the situation.


----------



## TriadGSD

if i was the owner i would of have gotten into my car and drive off he had plenty of time to do so.


----------



## Mikelia

One of the articles said the man took the dog to the car because the police told him to put it away and go back to them. Which he did. He was not leaving. 
The guy was clearly trying to make a statement, it is a free country and he will walk around the crime scene, say what he wants and video tape what he wants. I read some of the other articles and this guy has had many run ins with the police, and is charging them for brutality. The first thing I thought when I started watching the video is why is this guy parading around with his chest puffed out with his dog? I would also agree that there is probably a lot of police brutality in that neighborhood, and would not disagree that this guy has been treated unfairly in the past. But knowing that, I certainly would not drive around with music blaring, get out of my car and walk around like a peacock with my phone as high in the air as possible, with my dog.
This being said there was NO reason for the police to shoot that dog. They watched him walk around, minding his own business as other people were around. Dog got into the vehicle when told. Yes he got excited when his owner was handcuffed, yes he jumped out of the window, but he ran over and started sniffing the ground. He jumped and barked when they grabbed at him, then every one starting screaming and yelling and they grabbed for him again. The dog still did not bite, and if he was going to he would have at that moment. If they all would have just stood up and continued their conversations the dog would have just sat at his owners feet. 
I don't know what the perfect answer to this situation is. Like someone else said - do you honestly uncuff the guy (who shouldn't have been handcuffed in the first place it seems like, but forget that for the moment) to take the dog back to the vehicle. And how much would dog behaviour training really help. Obviously there are people on this board who misinterpreted this dogs behaviour, and we all own dogs and have some sense of canine body language. I, in no way shape or form, could see that dog biting those officers unless the owner ended up on the ground screaming and struggling - which is not what was happening at all. I would not consider that dog a threat. 
But it makes me mad because, imho, that man killed his dog. I TOTALLY disagree with the police officers behaviour, but I also totally disagree with the dog owners behaviour as well. Such an unfortunate incident, and a good dog died because of it. I blame every one, but police officers are supposed to be the ones to stay calm, cool and collected and make responsible decisions. This was not responsible.


----------



## llombardo

boomer11 said:


> hahah yeah right. they were harassing him because they knew he made a few complaints. they were in a potential dangerous situation that even included a swat car but hey theres that guy that made a complaint! lets go bother him instead! i like how people believe everything that this black guy says. like the cop really wanted to come harass him. they were carrying around assault rifles! the situation was serious and they were just trying to do their job.
> 
> if i was a cop in a potentially dangerous situation and was trying to do my job and someone comes up music blaring and walking all around the place like he owned it, i'd be pissed too. did you see anyone else dumb enough to walk that close to the situation? no they had enough respect to stay away or in their yard. this owner is an idiot and too bad the dog had to die for it.


Your blind if you think that they don't hold a grudge. Things were under control and the officer had an opportunity and took it. It does not matter if the guy is black, white, or green, I would think that the police were wrong no matter what. And just because he is black we shouldn't believe him? The video speaks for itself. Why should we believe the police, just because they are police? Maybe you have never lived in a big city or a gang ridden neighborhood, but music is always blaring and people that live in the neighborhood walk around all the time like they own it. If they don't they become victims. I wish I video taped a couple situations with the police. If they aren't doing anything wrong then it shouldn't be a problem. The only reason people don't go closer to these scenes is because they don't want to talk. If you live in a place like this and are even seen talking to the police, you are in trouble. Why do you think that all the gang bangers can keep killing each other? This man has had issues with the police officer, maybe he thought someone else was getting the same treatment as him and by videoing taping it, the officer couldn't get away with it. Its a free country and people have rights, this man's rights were seriously violated.


----------



## llombardo

Has anyone seen the video this guy taped? Or is it gone?


----------



## Rainer

I agree that he did not cross any legal lines (from what we saw in the video and based on the crappy reasoning the PD gave) and should not have been cuffed. He may not have broken the law, but he did purposely go into the situation trying to cause problems. IMO he selfishly placed his own desire to prove a point above the life of his dog.

Although equally wrong, he could have went home, dropped off his dog, and then returned to cause whatever problems he wanted. There was no reason to parade around with his dog in tow.

The police were wrong in their actions from the very beginning. I must say though...sometimes experiencing something first hand can seem much scarier than witnessing it from an outside view. On camera, the dog seemed to be confused and upset. From the officers point of view he may have seemed much scarier. Many people are scared of big dogs simply because they are big dogs. (ie...a few days ago I was sitting outside of Whole Foods with Rainer laying by my side. A man and woman walked by and the man stopped to admire Rainer...was rubbing his face in Rainer's face, making kissy noises, everything you shouldn't do to a strange dog (lol). The man made a comment about how cute and well behaved Rainer is...the woman kept her distance, looked in disgust and called him a "beast" ... everyone has their own perspective and prejudices).

In an ideal, perfect world all officers would maintain their composure and remain level headed at all times. Humans are humans though. The officers should be disciplined - they should not be making their own laws.


----------



## selzer

So let me understand this, we should not play are radio loud, because if we do and the cops decide to shoot our dog, it will be our fault. 

If we see a crime scene, and our dog happens to be with us, we should not stop and watch or hang out there with other by-standers because if the cops decide to arrest us for existing, they might decide to shoot our dog too. 

We should not take pictures or videos with our dog because if a police officer doesn't like that, they may arrest us and shoot our dog. 

We should not walk large dogs. Because cops shoot large dogs when they cuff their owners for walking them. 

And if we see the cops doing something they shouldn't do, we should all go home because our dogs are with us, and if we draw attention to ourselves, they may come over and rough us up, and maybe shoot our dogs while they are at it. 

And some of us think this is the way things ought to be? 

That is really sad. That is even more sad than the dog dying.


----------



## GatorBytes

selzer said:


> That is really sad. That is even more sad than the dog dying.


NOTHING is more sad than the dog dying


----------



## boomer11

some of you are exaggerating too much. that guy was NOT roughed up. and he clearly wasnt arrested because he was videotaping or else everyone else wouldve been arrested. 

he was clearly trying to cause trouble. the problem with american society is most people think sue sue sue. if you go up to someone and call them ugly,dumb,etc and they smack you in the face, people run home crying to their mommies and sue. the guy comes into the scene acting that way because he thinks hes untouchable. if it was legal for a cop to smack him, i bet he wouldnt come in there chest puffed up trying to clearly provoke them.

also being put in handcuffs doesnt mean you are being arrested. its very unfortunate that the dog was there. but dont go provoking people if you arent ready to be met with the same intensity. you have to give respect to get respect. if you treat the cops like crap, expect the same treatment back. they are humans. not robots.


----------



## Rainer

selzer said:


> So let me understand this, we should not play are radio loud, because if we do and the cops decide to shoot our dog, it will be our fault.
> 
> If we see a crime scene, and our dog happens to be with us, we should not stop and watch or hang out there with other by-standers because if the cops decide to arrest us for existing, they might decide to shoot our dog too. <-- He did not merely stop "to watch or hang out there with other by-standers" nor was he arrested for existing (which, btw, I don't agree that he should have even been arrested). He instigated and tried to rile up the already tense police officers. If he had stopped to watch like all the other by-standers I doubt this situation would have even come about. No other by-standers were arrested as far as I know.
> 
> We should not take pictures or videos with our dog because if a police officer doesn't like that, they may arrest us and shoot our dog. <-- There were plenty of other people there taking pictures and video (hence how this particular video was shot) that were not arrested.
> 
> We should not walk large dogs. Because cops shoot large dogs when they cuff their owners for walking them. <-- He was not cuffed for walking his large dog - IMO that's simplifying things. Walking his dog was just a (dumb, crappy, etc) supporting argument by the police to try to justify their reasoning for "obstruction of justice." The dog was shot because the officer perceived the dogs reaction as aggression.
> 
> And if we see the cops doing something they shouldn't do, we should all go home because our dogs are with us, and if we draw attention to ourselves, they may come over and rough us up, and maybe shoot our dogs while they are at it. <-- There is no evidence that any wrong doing on the part of the cops was being done at the time that the dog owner was taping, but if there was there was no reason to take his dog out of the car (especially a breed many associate with aggression and being "mean"). The dog should have been left in the car with the windows left open to allow sufficient air without allowing room for the dog to jump out.
> 
> And some of us think this is the way things ought to be? <-- Things should most definitely NOT be like this, but, sadly, they are. Knowing this, the dog owner has the full liberty and right to knowingly put his own welfare in danger, but to put an innocent life in danger - that is sad. He has lawsuits against the PD for brutality. From what I gather from other posters, this area mistrusts law enforcement and law enforcement there has a history of abusing their power/badge. He was looking to prove a point. His point cost him his dogs life.
> 
> That is really sad. That is even more sad than the dog dying.


Everyone is in the wrong. The police should have kept a clear head and handled the situation MUCH differently. The officers should be reprimanded for escalating the situation, rather than deescalating. There should be an effort to re-train all officers. It's a sad situation all around.

IMO everyone has the right to put their own lives and well-being at risk, but when your decisions are going to affect an innocent life you should be able to swallow your pride to protect the life that is dependent on you.


----------



## selzer

I think an attitude that blames a victim is more sad than the dog dying. Becuase if we think that cops should shoot peoples dogs if they feel antagonized, they we open it up to a lot more dead dogs. 

If this guy was trying to intimidate the officers with his dog, which he clearly was not at any time, it would have been a totally different story. If he refused to put the dog away, again, a different story. If he ordered the dog to attack, that would be a different story. 

The cops should not have put cuffs on this guy and they should not have shot the dog. The guy did not threaten them with a gun or try to strike them, or even interfere by crossing any lines. The cops caused this situation, and the idea that we should all stay in our houses and keep our mouths shut about anything cops do is a whole lot sadder than one dog dying. 

My dad says that LA is famous for bad cops, and the guy being a local, should have known that and therefore carries some of the blame, but only because the place is famous for it. And this guy does seem to know that they are. From the police point of view, I really don't know which is worse, the idea that your cops blatantly murdered some by-standers dog because the cops lost their cool and created an incident, or that the victim of this incident should be blamed because even people on the other side of the country know that your PD is one of the worst in the country for brutality. 

I got pretty snarky with a cop once when he was telling me that I couldn't train in an area -- and he was wrong. I finally left because I had the dog with me, and I didn't know what they would do to her if they arrested me. But I never in a million years thought they might shoot her -- and I came that close to being arrested that night, because I was really, really unhappy with that guy. I called the next day and talked to someone higher up and was told I was right. But I never thought the guy might shoot my dog. You should not have to fear that cops will shoot your dog if they tell you to do something or not to do something that is clearly not proper, and you use your voice to argue or complain that they are being unreasonable.


----------



## Courtney

Jack's Dad said:


> From the site city scout.
> 
> Hawthorne's crime index is 23 with 100 being the safest.
> 
> Median crimes per square mile 454. the Sate of CA 85. The U.S national average is 39.6.
> 
> It is notorious gang territory.
> 
> I wonder if the imperfect police are not just a little edgy there.
> 
> Oh that's right they are supposed to be above being human.
> 
> I could pretty much guess that most of the cop haters would not want to live in Hawthorne.
> 
> I was born and raised down there and know what it's really like.
> 
> Sorry to interrupt the never ending cops are jerks and should know and understand everything about dog behavior etc....


Andy I always appreciate your posts

I can't watch this video because I just can't watch the dog being killed. I appreciated the OP giving the warning.

My husband watched the video. His take away. He believes he can hear an attempt to use a taser...he's very familiar with the sound but can't be 100% sure, alot of crowd noise. Speaking of crowd noise, there were some cheering this guy & dog on "get him"...yikes. Talk about a potentially volatile situation...not to mention why the police are there in the first place. My husband has very harsh words for the dog owners neglect of his dog.

If I see SWAT or a heavy police presence...you will not see me sticking around. Get me the heck out of there.


----------



## selzer

Courtney said:


> Andy I always appreciate your posts
> 
> I can't watch this video because I just can't watch the dog being killed. I appreciated the OP giving the warning.
> 
> My husband watched the video. His take away. He believes he can hear an attempt to use a taser...he's very familiar with the sound but can't be 100% sure, alot of crowd noise. Speaking of crowd noise, there were some cheering this guy & dog on "get him"...yikes. Talk about a potentially volatile situation...not to mention why the police are there in the first place. My husband has very harsh words for the dog owners neglect of his dog.
> 
> If I see SWAT or a heavy police presence...you will not see me sticking around. Get me the heck out of there.


One saturday morning on my way out for a half day at work, I saw the Methodist minister taking her morning run. 5 hours later, I came back and there were police lines and by-standers everywhere. While she was running that morning, some guy was walking around with a gun and shot the owner of Hardy's dead -- this is while I was driving to work, I went down that street, though I didn't see anything except the lady out running. But I know a lot more of the story now than I did then. 

I recognized one of the people I worked with and pulled over, and asked him what was going on, and he said there was a shooting and then the guy killed the k9 and the cops killed him. 

I did not get out of dodge, nor did any of those people. Something totally crazy happened and we were seeing it go down. If we were bothering the police, they would have come over and told us to go on home. But, I think it is not all that strange for people to witness the aftermath of stuff like this, because it is hard to believe it is even happening. My sister went to school with the shooter. It's a small town.


----------



## GatorBytes

Was Hawthorne dog shooting avoidable? | ohmidog!

^^^...Rosby driving up and stopping at the intersection, and, with his dog on a leash, getting out of his car. Rosby stands on the corner for a few minutes, while, from his car, an Usher song, “Tell Me Again,” plays loudly on a loop.
Police said Rosby was asked to turn down the music.
“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, 52, said he began recording the scene on his cellphone to ensure no civil rights violations were taking place.
He said Monday he has had previous run-ins with police. Court records show he has convictions for resisting, battery and driving under the influence, and he told the Daily Breeze he has filed six complaints against the Hawthorne Police Department, alleging mistreatment and racial profiling. In one lawsuit he filed, he contends Hawthorne officers broke one of his ribs when they responded to a domestic violence disturbance at his house.


----------



## Rainer

I don't believe the man is the victim in this situation. The real victim was the dog and I do not blame him in any way, shape, or form. The dog was doing what he was bred to do.

Both the man and the cops are to blame in this situation. 

I don't agree that the cops alone caused the situation, but I do agree that they irresponsibly escalated it. I think if the officer had shot the dog while it was barking at them in the car THEN you can say that they just shot the dog for no reason. 

Could the officers have handled the dog coming at them differently? Yes. BUT...You do not know the officers experience with dogs and can't know what was going through his mind. Was it self preservation/fear or just pure arrogance? This is what should be investigated and dealt with.

I don't believe people should just stay home and turn a blind eye to injustice. (I'm Egyptian and my country is out by the millions as we speak protesting against injustice ) I DO believe that addressing injustice should be done responsibly. Just because someone has a badge and a gun does NOT mean they are a good person. Just because things shouldn't be a certain way, does not mean that they aren't.


----------



## selzer

GatorBytes said:


> Was Hawthorne dog shooting avoidable? | ohmidog!
> 
> ^^^...Rosby driving up and stopping at the intersection, and, with his dog on a leash, getting out of his car. Rosby stands on the corner for a few minutes, while, from his car, an Usher song, “Tell Me Again,” plays loudly on a loop.
> Police said Rosby was asked to turn down the music.
> “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, 52, said he began recording the scene on his cellphone to ensure no civil rights violations were taking place.
> He said Monday he has had previous run-ins with police. Court records show he has convictions for resisting, battery and driving under the influence, and he told the Daily Breeze he has filed six complaints against the Hawthorne Police Department, alleging mistreatment and racial profiling. In one lawsuit he filed, he contends Hawthorne officers broke one of his ribs when they responded to a domestic violence disturbance at his house.


He could be a chronic complainer/troublemaker, OR the police could actually be guilty on all counts. Which is true? That U-tube which was not taken or posted by him shows the officers are likely to be everything he has complained about in the past.


----------



## selzer

Is Hawthorne and LA close or one within the other? Where did I get LA from?


----------



## GatorBytes

The f/u link I just posted is the dog owners account.

at the end it goes to a window where you can click on the PD's response


----------



## Courtney

selzer said:


> Is Hawthorne and LA close or one within the other? Where did I get LA from?


According to Google 20 minutes apart.


----------



## Msmaria

selzer said:


> Is Hawthorne and LA close or one within the other? Where did I get LA from?



Hawthorne is in L A County. But as the other poster pointed out its about 20 mins from the city of Los Angeles. Hope this makes sense.


----------



## Fade2Black

> It is notorious gang territory.


And one of the notorious gangs out there is called the police.......


----------



## mharrisonjr26

I cant say how I feel except. Another reason I dont like alot of Police Officers.


----------



## nhstadt

Just saw the video... Terrible. But, at the end of the day,a rottweiler, Shepherd, pit, really any large dog, especially a breed known to be aggressive, lunges at me and I am armed, I am gonna defend myself by whatever means necessary. Pepper spray probably would have just pissed it off more. you only get one shot with a taser, if you miss you are essentially holding a really inefficient club. The officer was defending himself. Can't say I blame him. That being said, dude probably should not have been arrested, he was well within his rights to record the actions of the police.


----------



## Fade2Black

Here is a little taste of that police dept. Between 04 and 09 they paid out over two million to settle 15 brutality and civil rights violations......

More proof of what idiots to many cops are (from the link)

That story also contains one of the most ridiculous quotes I've ever heard: "Hawthorne police Lt. Scott 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." 

It's an insult to everyone's intelligence. It's an insult to dog lovers or anyone who knows anything about dogs. Or has even the tiniest bit of commonsense. There's a lot of things Lt. Scott Swain could have said. He could have called the situation an unfortunate incident, admitted things got a little out of control or even played the officer safety card. Instead, he chose to tell the public, including the taxpaying citizens of Hawthorne, that the reason they shot a dog belonging to a man they were arresting was for that same man's protection. 

Mountain Home News: Blog: A closer look at the Hawthorne Police Department, which recently shot a man's dog after arresting him for filming police officers, shows a disturbing history of police misconduct

(edit) For anyone that's interested in trying to stop thug police from shooting and murdering dogs.....

https://www.facebook.com/DogsShotbyPolice


----------



## Msmaria

This info is now online. Now there's more info why the officer does not like to be video taped. 

The Hawthorne Police Department has refused to release the name of that officer. However, Rosby, in an interview, claims the name of the officer who shot his dog is named Officer Salmon.

An interesting thing happened when I typed "Officer Salmon Hawthorne" into Google. (Click on the link, should be the fifth article down.)

This story came up. The headline: "Hawthorne Police Department Pays $1,000,000 To Settle Police Brutality & Corruption Lawsuit."

Wonder what that's about?

According to the subhead, "The Hawthorne Police Department paid One Million Dollars to a Settle Lawsuit in which it was alleged a man was kicked in the face while handcuffed and then falsely prosecuted along with his wife to cover up the brutality. Evidence the plaintiffs were prepared to present at trial included a photograph of an officer appearing to kick the handcuffed plaintiff in the face and a surveillance video allegedly depicting officers high-fiving each other as the injured plaintiff suffered from a broken jaw."

That story ran in February 2009. According to that story, "Officers Ian Elliot, Thomas Heffner, Melanie Newenham, Renee Descant, Jeffrey Salmon, David Gregor and Jailer Darnell Wallace were among defendants named in the lawsuit."

Woah, an Officer Salmon was involved in a story about police officer brutality and corruption?!? Say it ain't so!


Guess what happens when you run "Officer Jeffrey Salmon Hawthorne?" You get this story, which ran 13 days later, which states, "A third officer, Jeffrey Salmon, who acknowledged kicking Goodrow twice in the ribs, testified that he was aware of an investigation but was never interviewed."


----------



## llombardo

Msmaria said:


> This info is now online. Now there's more info why the officer does not like to be video taped.
> 
> The Hawthorne Police Department has refused to release the name of that officer. However, Rosby, in an interview, claims the name of the officer who shot his dog is named Officer Salmon.
> 
> An interesting thing happened when I typed "Officer Salmon Hawthorne" into Google. (Click on the link, should be the fifth article down.)
> 
> This story came up. The headline: "Hawthorne Police Department Pays $1,000,000 To Settle Police Brutality & Corruption Lawsuit."
> 
> Wonder what that's about?
> 
> According to the subhead, "The Hawthorne Police Department paid One Million Dollars to a Settle Lawsuit in which it was alleged a man was kicked in the face while handcuffed and then falsely prosecuted along with his wife to cover up the brutality. Evidence the plaintiffs were prepared to present at trial included a photograph of an officer appearing to kick the handcuffed plaintiff in the face and a surveillance video allegedly depicting officers high-fiving each other as the injured plaintiff suffered from a broken jaw."
> 
> That story ran in February 2009. According to that story, "Officers Ian Elliot, Thomas Heffner, Melanie Newenham, Renee Descant, Jeffrey Salmon, David Gregor and Jailer Darnell Wallace were among defendants named in the lawsuit."
> 
> Woah, an Officer Salmon was involved in a story about police officer brutality and corruption?!? Say it ain't so!
> 
> 
> Guess what happens when you run "Officer Jeffrey Salmon Hawthorne?" You get this story, which ran 13 days later, which states, "A third officer, Jeffrey Salmon, who acknowledged kicking Goodrow twice in the ribs, testified that he was aware of an investigation but was never interviewed."


This doesn't surprise me at all. From the very beginning I felt this guy went out of his way to videotape something that he thought was worth video taping. It wasn't about the crime, it was about the officers and something he saw that he wasn't suppose to see. This officer seems like a real winner, maybe the police department should invest its money on getting better officers instead of paying for lawsuits all the time. Fire this guy, press charges against him, and make a public apology and all of that still won't change what happened.


----------



## Syaoransbear

I think the guy screwed up, but how hard would it have been for the officers to just ask the guy to get his dog once it jumped out of the car and was milling about? Why did they have to keep holding onto him, he offered himself up willingly so he obviously isn't going to run away and he wasn't a violent offender. He was just being noisy.


----------



## Fade2Black

"Obstruction of Justice" is just another bogus charge used by police now because they can no longer get away with charging people for being video taped......

7 rules for recording police.......

7 Rules for Recording Police | Flex Your Rights

Supreme Court rejects plea to ban taping of police in Illinois - chicagotribune.com

By Jason Meisner Tribune reporter 7:44 p.m. CST, November 26, 2012

 The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal of a controversial Illinois law prohibiting people from recording police officers on the job.
By passing on the issue, the justices left in place a federal appeals court ruling that found that the state's anti-eavesdropping law violates free-speech rights when used against people who audiotape police officers.


----------



## Clyde

nhstadt said:


> Just saw the video... Terrible. But, at the end of the day,a rottweiler, Shepherd, pit, really any large dog, especially a breed known to be aggressive, lunges at me and I am armed, I am gonna defend myself by whatever means necessary. Pepper spray probably would have just pissed it off more. you only get one shot with a taser, if you miss you are essentially holding a really inefficient club. The officer was defending himself. Can't say I blame him. That being said, dude probably should not have been arrested, he was well within his rights to record the actions of the police.


Where have you heard pepper spray will piss a dog off? I would think it would work the same as it does on a bear, cougar or other animal?


----------



## ken k

GatorBytes said:


> Was Hawthorne dog shooting avoidable? | ohmidog!
> 
> ^^^.


well, after reading that, at the very end 
"Rosby spent the night in jail on suspicion of obstruction and was released at 5 a.m. Monday".


"suspicion of obstruction"??????, what kind of charge of that?


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

O.K. and I do agree Rosby was pushing it and for the record I would *not *have gotten so close nor gotten my dog out of the car to begin with.

However Rosby did what he did, didn't really cross any legal lines and *then decided to leave. *

I could have more sympathy for the cops if he had kept pushing it, but he didn't *he tried to leave*.

So the cops made a choice to escalate when they didn't have to and therefore they are fully responsible for the following consequences of THEIR choices.






Rainer said:


> I agree that he did not cross any legal lines (from what we saw in the video and based on the crappy reasoning the PD gave) and should not have been cuffed. He may not have broken the law, but he did purposely go into the situation trying to cause problems. IMO he selfishly placed his own desire to prove a point above the life of his dog.
> 
> Although equally wrong, he could have went home, dropped off his dog, and then returned to cause whatever problems he wanted. There was no reason to parade around with his dog in tow.
> 
> The police were wrong in their actions from the very beginning. I must say though...sometimes experiencing something first hand can seem much scarier than witnessing it from an outside view. On camera, the dog seemed to be confused and upset. From the officers point of view he may have seemed much scarier. Many people are scared of big dogs simply because they are big dogs. (ie...a few days ago I was sitting outside of Whole Foods with Rainer laying by my side. A man and woman walked by and the man stopped to admire Rainer...was rubbing his face in Rainer's face, making kissy noises, everything you shouldn't do to a strange dog (lol). The man made a comment about how cute and well behaved Rainer is...the woman kept her distance, looked in disgust and called him a "beast" ... everyone has their own perspective and prejudices).
> 
> In an ideal, perfect world all officers would maintain their composure and remain level headed at all times. Humans are humans though. The officers should be disciplined - they should not be making their own laws.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

I've seen it have little to no effect and yes some dogs do react more aggressively if sprayed. Which is why people use bear spray, much stronger.




Clyde said:


> Where have you heard pepper spray will piss a dog off? I would think it would work the same as it does on a bear, cougar or other animal?


----------



## ken k

Gwenhwyfair said:


> So the cops made a choice to escalate when they didn't have to and therefore they are fully responsible for the following consequences of THEIR choices.


if the cops where there for an armed suspect, they didn't need to be fiddling around with this guy and his dog


----------



## Swifty

Gwenhwyfair said:


> O.K. and I do agree Rosby was pushing it and for the record I would *not *have gotten so close nor gotten my dog out of the car to begin with.
> 
> However Rosby did what he did, didn't really cross any legal lines and *then decided to leave. *
> 
> I could have more sympathy for the cops if he had kept pushing it, but he didn't *he tried to leave*.
> 
> So the cops made a choice to escalate when they didn't have to and therefore they are fully responsible for the following consequences of THEIR choices.


Look at the guy's body language. There were no other people directly around him and he didn't start to leave until the cops decided already to take action. He was clearly pushing boundaries and *he knew it* and seemed to be doing it purely to piss off the cops. He wanted to show off his 'tough guy' image and his dog paid the price. The police do not treat dogs like they treat people, _any_ aggression and they'll shoot it. They don't let people go just because they have a dog, even if they have to kill the dog to talk to a suspect. People need to know this and not bring their dog into situations like that.

I look at police like I would look at a big, dangerous dog that I only tolerate because it protects me from _other_ dangerous dogs. Even if it's there to protect you, if you poke it with a stick it will bite your ****ing hand off. This guy did the equivalent of bring his child along to poke the big protective dog.


----------



## Kayos and Havoc

nhstadt said:


> Just saw the video... Terrible. But, at the end of the day,a rottweiler, Shepherd, pit, really any large dog, especially a breed known to be aggressive, lunges at me and I am armed, I am gonna defend myself by whatever means necessary. Pepper spray probably would have just pissed it off more. you only get one shot with a taser, if you miss you are essentially holding a really inefficient club. The officer was defending himself. Can't say I blame him. That being said, dude probably should not have been arrested, he was well within his rights to record the actions of the police.


As we all own one of those breeds 'known to be aggressive' I think I will disagree with you. That statement is quite prejudiced against many breeds. And - according to recent studies, there are a few breeds of small dogs that have been shown to the more aggressive dogs. So the next time I see my nrighbors doxie and Chichauhau lunge at me I think I can just shoot them?

Just because a dog lunges does not mean it intends to bite you.


----------



## Swifty

Kayos and Havoc said:


> As we all own one of those breeds 'known to be aggressive' I think I will disagree with you. That statement is quite prejudiced against many breeds. And - according to recent studies, there are a few breeds of small dogs that have been shown to the more aggressive dogs. So the next time I see my nrighbors doxie and Chichauhau lunge at me I think I can just shoot them?
> 
> Just because a dog lunges does not mean it intends to bite you.


If they have the size to back up the aggressive attitude, I wouldn't blame you. I've wanted to kick the annoying things when they've come at me. Their only saving grace is that they're too small to hurt most people, but I wouldn't want them around small children.


----------



## APBTLove

Shaolin said:


> So, what type of dog handling training do you think they should have? It's just a general question, no snarkiness involved...just wondering.





I think they should be trained to physically handle a dog, and be armed to do so - I rarely see officers with catch poles, which is one of the most useful tools ever for controlling a dog. You can tase a dog all you want, if you don't kill it - he's going to take off and you just set loose a NOW dangerous dog into the area.

Absolutely there are times when using force, be it deadly or not, is warranted. 

I think that they should learn the basics, because you are right that them having to learn body language could give the ones who just don't like animals a great excuse to harm more.. A dog trying to escape a catchpole isn't a threat - they don't need to be tasered until unconsciousness. The pole is there to secure them. 

The American Bulldog they shot dead on a catch pole, they thought she was aggressive because she was scared of the pole.
Another bull breed was tasered repeatedly while on a catch pole for fighting the pole. 

They should be taught what is a real threat and worthy of firing at and what isn't. A 13yo Cocker Spaniel has to be one of those cases that aren't worth shooting. A dog in an enclosed area attacking is certainly a taser-worthy endeavor. Dogs aren't like people - a normal dog isn't going to come back for an attack after he's been hit with a stun gun. A dog keeping a distance and woofing at you isn't worthy of firing at. A dog heading at you full speeding and making you do some ninja moves to keep from being mauled - fire away. 

A dog with no handler (well, capable handler) in sight, in public who is aggressing and attacking? I wouldn't suggest using a taser since he will get away. No, then unfortunately I think they do have the right and should put a well-place bullet into him. There is a video of several Bully breed dogs surrounding an ACO (who lost his head completely) and nipping at him, no doubt if they got ahold of him they'd maul him by their behavior - which was very much like dos surrounding a wild boar on a hunt, waiting for an opening to grab. A police officer shot ONCE, and hit a red dog perfectly, he died instantly and all of the other dogs stopped. That was completely warranted and I wouldn't have blamed him for executing the rest rather than letting them go. 

A time for catch poles is another video I've seen of a Pit Bull type dog who was doing his very best to protect his unconscious owner in public, not allowing people to approach. They stood around for a good while and then shot the dog dead after he bit(or just rushed on) one lady and finally charged the cop.





I do not blame the cops so much in this instance. YES, they should have cleared everyone out of the area anyway, but if the guy needed medical help, waiting on animal control isn't the best option. Though, they could have had the decency to put the poor thing out of it's misery.

This is an example of a cop doing the best he could - I do not blame him for not using a taser. Not too graphic. 






This one is a little more hard to watch. Two Bull breeds in a man's backyard bullying his beagle. The male keeps barking at them. But keeping his distance. 
Yes, they were being rough and were knocking that beagle around, they were not attacking him.
Again, a kill shot would have been nice. 






One video showing bully breeds chasing down a kid and biting his leg, owner was present, owner was an idiot, and the officer shot the dog. I was absolutely fine with it and he should have finished he dog. 





As for what I meant with what I said about calling the dog off and this situation VS the ACO, they officers here were all armed and ready to kill that dog. If the guy had set the dog on them, they were ready. And then I'm sure they'd be happy because they'd have something real to charge him with.


----------



## boomer11

Kayos and Havoc said:


> Just because a dog lunges does not mean it intends to bite you.


so you're saying that if a german shep/pit/rott lunged at you or your children, you would just take your chances that it wouldnt bite? what kind of silly reasoning is that? that cop had every right to shoot. cops are taught to shoot at the very first signs of aggression towards them. they dont have time to play dog whisperer


----------



## Bridget

A thought hit me the moment I woke up today. Lest anyone think I've moved over to the other side, I haven't. I still hold that the guy didn't break any law and therefore, shouldn't have been detained and none of this should have happened. However, here's the thought...why was this camera person filming the guy with his dog? The recording showed the view just enough of the police cars to let us know it was a crime scene, but then flipped to the guy and his dog. It was clear to me that the police were not the object, the guy was. So why? The remote possibility hit me that this was something of a setup, that the dog owner knew there would be trouble and deliberately had someone filming him while he was filming the cops. Perhaps he was antagonizing them verbally, hoping they would rough him up a bit while his friend was taping every minute of it and then he could use it for his pending lawsuit?? This doesn't change my opinion of the cops' behavior. But if the guy was looking for trouble, maybe it would have been wiser to leave his dog home.


----------



## Courtney

Since we are all being so open about our opinions (some of the anti cop views by some on this board are very radical IMO). Anyways. I would be lying if the thought didn't cross my mind that this guy didn't sacrificed his dog for another lawsuit $$$ .That he knew exactly what would happen if he acted a certain way. 

I know everyone just gasped that I said that. But who freaking knows??



Bridget said:


> A thought hit me the moment I woke up today. Lest anyone think I've moved over to the other side, I haven't. I still hold that the guy didn't break any law and therefore, shouldn't have been detained and none of this should have happened. However, here's the thought...why was this camera person filming the guy with his dog? The recording showed the view just enough of the police cars to let us know it was a crime scene, but then flipped to the guy and his dog. It was clear to me that the police were not the object, the guy was. So why? The remote possibility hit me that this was something of a setup, that the dog owner knew there would be trouble and deliberately had someone filming him while he was filming the cops. Perhaps he was antagonizing them verbally, hoping they would rough him up a bit while his friend was taping every minute of it and then he could use it for his pending lawsuit?? This doesn't change my opinion of the cops' behavior. But if the guy was looking for trouble, maybe it would have been wiser to leave his dog home.


----------



## APBTLove

boomer11 said:


> so you're saying that if a german shep/pit/rott lunged at you or your children, you would just take your chances that it wouldnt bite? what kind of silly reasoning is that? that cop had every right to shoot. cops are taught to shoot at the very first signs of aggression towards them. they dont have time to play dog whisperer


If a dog of any breed that I couldn't punt across a yard like a football lunged at my children I would use the highest form or defense I could. 

Not that I have kids. But that is the obvious answer. 

Not the same as this scenario, though. 



Who knows, the man seemed genuinely shocked an devastated. I don't think he knew the cops were going to shoot his dog and he'd get money. Dogs being killed rarely amount to much payment. I did hear of a big settlement over that poor Ambull killed viciously on a catchpole. But that's not common. 

People who aren't very internet and dog savvy don't always think like we would. When me and Jaeger were stuck at the scene of a shooting, I kept away from the victim and called 911, stayed long enough for the ambulance to get there, and had someone else hand the officers my info to get my witness statement and I got my dog home ASAP. Though I KNOW my dog reacts bad to strangers. 

And to the average pet owner like him, and judging by his dogs' body language before the cops snatched up his owner, he was calm and not even overly alert amid a excited crowd - he had no reason to suspect his dog was going to feel a need to protect him or aggress anyone. Why would he put his dog in the car, try to make the dog back away from the officers, and act like he'd been hit in the gut when he saw his dog being slaughtered? 

I don't think sacrificing his dog or getting a lawsuit was on his mind, he was leaving.

As for why they video taped him after he arrived? Maybe because he was the only point of interest from that view at the time. He was in front, walking a striking good looking dog, and there was nothing else to really see since the cops were all down the road at that point. You'd be shocked at how quick video cameras come out hoping something will happen. Thus video taping until it does. 

Or maybe you're right. It seems unlikely, though.


----------



## Kayos and Havoc

Well Boomer, my kid is 30 years old and was raised with GSD's so at this stage in my life I have no point of reference. A leashed dog that lunges is not really a threat. An unleashed dog intended to bite is most likely going to come at you and not stop. 

Most dogs lunge to increase distance or to protect something. It does not take the dog whisperer to figure out the dog is MOST LIKELY not a threat. An officer of the law that deals in situations that may be dangerous SHOULD have MINIMAL training to figure when a dog is really a threat.


----------



## ohdev

I don't know if anyone else posted this, but here is what went on before the video in the article OP posted. Same person recording.

Hawthorne, Ca Police Kill Dog(2)

Just my own personal opinion, but there was no need for the guy to drive by and then come back, leave his music blasting, and then crowd so close to the area the police are set up at. I don't blame the officer for shooting the dog, it charged the officers, and I don't believe one of the officers should have been bit before being justified to deal with the threat.

I also don't think police need to be trained to deal with animals, they're not AC. It's your own responsibility to control your animal and not do something stupid when you are out and about with them. If you do something to warrant police attention, then that's on you, as are the consequences of your animals behavior.


----------



## Shaolin

APBTLove said:


> I think they should be trained to physically handle a dog, and be armed to do so - I rarely see officers with catch poles, which is one of the most useful tools ever for controlling a dog. You can tase a dog all you want, if you don't kill it - he's going to take off and you just set loose a NOW dangerous dog into the area.
> 
> Absolutely there are times when using force, be it deadly or not, is warranted.
> 
> I think that they should learn the basics, because you are right that them having to learn body language could give the ones who just don't like animals a great excuse to harm more.. A dog trying to escape a catchpole isn't a threat - they don't need to be tasered until unconsciousness. The pole is there to secure them.
> 
> The American Bulldog they shot dead on a catch pole, they thought she was aggressive because she was scared of the pole.
> Another bull breed was tasered repeatedly while on a catch pole for fighting the pole.
> 
> They should be taught what is a real threat and worthy of firing at and what isn't. A 13yo Cocker Spaniel has to be one of those cases that aren't worth shooting. A dog in an enclosed area attacking is certainly a taser-worthy endeavor. Dogs aren't like people - a normal dog isn't going to come back for an attack after he's been hit with a stun gun. A dog keeping a distance and woofing at you isn't worthy of firing at. A dog heading at you full speeding and making you do some ninja moves to keep from being mauled - fire away.
> 
> A dog with no handler (well, capable handler) in sight, in public who is aggressing and attacking? I wouldn't suggest using a taser since he will get away. No, then unfortunately I think they do have the right and should put a well-place bullet into him. There is a video of several Bully breed dogs surrounding an ACO (who lost his head completely) and nipping at him, no doubt if they got ahold of him they'd maul him by their behavior - which was very much like dos surrounding a wild boar on a hunt, waiting for an opening to grab. A police officer shot ONCE, and hit a red dog perfectly, he died instantly and all of the other dogs stopped. That was completely warranted and I wouldn't have blamed him for executing the rest rather than letting them go.
> 
> A time for catch poles is another video I've seen of a Pit Bull type dog who was doing his very best to protect his unconscious owner in public, not allowing people to approach. They stood around for a good while and then shot the dog dead after he bit(or just rushed on) one lady and finally charged the cop.
> Police Shoot Dog Protecting Owner (Homeless man having a seizure) - YouTube
> 
> I do not blame the cops so much in this instance. YES, they should have cleared everyone out of the area anyway, but if the guy needed medical help, waiting on animal control isn't the best option. Though, they could have had the decency to put the poor thing out of it's misery.
> 
> This is an example of a cop doing the best he could - I do not blame him for not using a taser. Not too graphic.
> Graphic Content: Nampa police release video of dogs attacking officer prior to shooting - YouTube
> 
> 
> This one is a little more hard to watch. Two Bull breeds in a man's backyard bullying his beagle. The male keeps barking at them. But keeping his distance.
> Yes, they were being rough and were knocking that beagle around, they were not attacking him.
> Again, a kill shot would have been nice.
> Pitbulls attack Cop and get Shot - YouTube
> 
> 
> One video showing bully breeds chasing down a kid and biting his leg, owner was present, owner was an idiot, and the officer shot the dog. I was absolutely fine with it and he should have finished he dog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for what I meant with what I said about calling the dog off and this situation VS the ACO, they officers here were all armed and ready to kill that dog. If the guy had set the dog on them, they were ready. And then I'm sure they'd be happy because they'd have something real to charge him with.


 
First of all, thank you for a very well thought out response. I really enjoyed reading your answer.  I think the majority of the responses here are well thought out and written, but I really liked your answer.

Maybe I was just lucky; very small Police force that worked very closely with the K9 handler and they were constantly doing whatever they could to diffuse an animal situation. I can't count how many times I saw an officer sacrifice their lunch to distract a dog and they all had catch poles in their vehicles and knew how to use them properly. 

The only time I ever saw an officer pull their service weapon and point it towards an animal was when a woman threatened to command her two GSDs to attack us. She was speaking German to them and they were getting more and more riled up and showing all signs of true aggression. The one dog lunged forward, catching the edge of our medic bag and ripping it. The officer pulled out his service weapon and told her if she didn't put her dogs away, he would kill them. She wisely put them away. Past that incident, even with "aggressive" acting dogs, usually one officer was trying to not have to use lethal action while a second officer was at the ready just in case.

Thank you for the clarification...as you see from the above example, the idea of allowing someone to verbally command a dog terrifies me. 

Are you a dog trainer/behaviorist? This next question goes to you if you are and the other trainer/behaviorists on this thread: Have you ever volunteered to go to your local department and offer training on dog behavior? Since there seems to be such a problem with Officers discharging their weapons on animals that, from a lay-person's perspective, looks like a dog ready to rip your face off, I wonder if anyone has ever thought about going out and starting to be the voice of change.


----------



## Fade2Black

Swifty said:


> Look at the guy's body language. There were no other people directly around him and he didn't start to leave until the cops decided already to take action. He was clearly pushing boundaries and *he knew it* and seemed to be doing it purely to piss off the cops. He wanted to show off his 'tough guy' image and his dog paid the price. The police do not treat dogs like they treat people, _any_ aggression and they'll shoot it. They don't let people go just because they have a dog, even if they have to kill the dog to talk to a suspect. People need to know this and not bring their dog into situations like that.
> 
> I look at police like I would look at a big, dangerous dog that I only tolerate because it protects me from _other_ dangerous dogs. Even if it's there to protect you, if you poke it with a stick it will bite your ****ing hand off. This guy did the equivalent of bring his child along to poke the big protective dog.


A necessary Evil with a big emphasis on Evil??.... Police also shoot innocent people. A couple of us gave that recent example in LA during that man hunt for Christopher Dorner. There are many others (with no consequences for doing it).....

Cops get pissed off at the slightest thing even if they started it. I'll give you an example a lot of us have had happen. You get pulled over by a cop. Nothing serious like drunk driving etc. But you aren't wearing a seat-belt or my favorite the make it up routine traffic stop. You treat the COP like you would want to be treated. You stay calm, be polite and civil. You readily hand over your info (license, registration and insurance). Then I bet this has happened to the majority of people. The cop then proceeds to ask where are you coming from?? Where are you going?? That's none of their business and watch what happens (the attitude) when you assert your constitutional right to not play their silly little game. Even if your not under arrest. You don't have to answer any question (except name, dob, address).....But of course 2-2 many in here if the cop made up a bogus charge or beat you because of it then it's really your fault......




Courtney said:


> Since we are all being so open about our opinions (some of the anti cop views by some on this board are very radical IMO). Anyways. I would be lying if the thought didn't cross my mind that this guy didn't sacrificed his dog for another lawsuit $$$ .That he knew exactly what would happen if he acted a certain way.
> 
> I know everyone just gasped that I said that. But who freaking knows??


And some of the views of some police sympathisers/enablers are dangerous IMO.....

For the sake of argument lets say you are 100% correct. What does that say about cops then?? That they are trigger happy ticking time bombs just waiting to go off????


----------



## Swifty

Fade2Black said:


> A necessary Evil with a big emphasis on Evil??.... Police also shoot innocent people. A couple of us gave that recent example in LA during that man hunt for Christopher Dorner. There are many others (with no consequences for doing it).....


Not evil, any more than people in the military are evil. They just have a _wildly_ different view of people than you or I. You can't have people trying to kill you every day and not have a twisted view of how other people behave, I think. Like a protective dog, cops are going to view *everyone* as a threat to their safety unless they're handcuffed face-down on the pavement with a gun on them.

Regardless of your rights, you don't provoke people who think you are going to hurt them and who are ready and willing to kill you to prevent that. You keep the stick handy in case the protection-trained dog turns on you, but you don't go out of your way to piss it off, either.



Fade2Black said:


> Cops get pissed off at the slightest thing even if they started it.


I don't doubt it. They deal with a ton of stuff day in and day out with the worst of humanity.


----------



## brightspot

For what it's worth, Colorado now requires police to be trained in reading a dog's body language to try to avoid unnecessary shootings. The training is computer based, but every little bit helps, I suppose.
Colorado Senate Approves ?Don?t Shoot My Dog? Bill | Life With Dogs


----------



## Courtney

Fade2Black said:


> A necessary Evil with a big emphasis on Evil??.... Police also shoot innocent people. A couple of us gave that recent example in LA during that man hunt for Christopher Dorner. There are many others (with no consequences for doing it).....
> 
> Cops get pissed off at the slightest thing even if they started it. I'll give you an example a lot of us have had happen. You get pulled over by a cop. Nothing serious like drunk driving etc. But you aren't wearing a seat-belt or my favorite the make it up routine traffic stop. You treat the COP like you would want to be treated. You stay calm, be polite and civil. You readily hand over your info (license, registration and insurance). Then I bet this has happened to the majority of people. The cop then proceeds to ask where are you coming from?? Where are you going?? That's none of their business and watch what happens (the attitude) when you assert your constitutional right to not play their silly little game. Even if your not under arrest. You don't have to answer any question (except name, dob, address).....But of course 2-2 many in here if the cop made up a bogus charge or beat you because of it then it's really your fault......
> 
> *And some of the views of some police sympathisers/enablers are dangerous IMO.....*
> 
> *For the sake of argument lets say you are 100% correct. What does that say about cops then?? That they are trigger happy ticking time bombs just waiting to* go off????


Huh? My friend, you and I are on totally different ends of this conversation and views of the police as a whole. No biggie.

I personally have never experienced a bad encounter with a police officer or witnessed unethical behavior. They are supported in my small community & we pass their levies. 

There are tools in every profession. Trust me, I do not defend every single police officer, no way. If there is an abuse of power, the law is broken, procedure not followed they should be held accountable. I am just not part of the witch hunt and posting police officers name on the internet and rallying the troops against them.


----------



## ken k

something i noticed in the video, there was no cop behind the police cars directing traffic , and keep bystanders away, anytime anything happens around here where there is a large police presence, cops are keeping traffic moving and people away, if one of those cops were standing on the corner we wouldn't be posting in this thread


----------



## Kayos and Havoc

WOuld love to copy a FB post I saw a little while ago about this. The poster was a friend of friend and also a Police officer. Basically her stance was the guy was foolish being there and foolish to bring his dog. She further said she and other officers encounter dogs all the time that may lunge or bark or act intimidating. She said most of them have no desire to bite. The officers do not like shooting dogs and will only do so as a last resort, they will ask the owner to contain or control the dog first. They are also receive training to read a dog in order to prevent tragedy.


----------



## Mrs.K

Kayos and Havoc said:


> WOuld love to copy a FB post I saw a little while ago about this. The poster was a friend of friend and also a Police officer. Basically her stance was the guy was foolish being there and foolish to bring his dog. She further said she and other officers encounter dogs all the time that may lunge or bark or act intimidating. She said most of them have no desire to bite. The officers do not like shooting dogs and will only do so as a last resort, they will ask the owner to contain or control the dog first. They are also receive training to read a dog in order to prevent tragedy.


Clearly they asked him to detain his dog before shooting the dog. 

He didn't do anything wrong! He had a right to be there, he wasn't in the way, he wasn't obstructing.... 

Blaming the victim... got to love it...


----------



## Fade2Black

Courtney said:


> Huh? My friend, you and I are on totally different ends of this conversation and views of the police as a whole. No biggie.
> 
> I personally have never experienced a bad encounter with a police officer or witnessed unethical behavior. They are supported in my small community & we pass their levies.
> 
> There are tools in every profession. Trust me, I do not defend every single police officer, no way. If there is an abuse of power, the law is broken, procedure not followed they should be held accountable. I am just not part of the witch hunt and posting police officers name on the internet and rallying the troops against them.



No problem. I respect your opinion........


----------



## Fade2Black

Swifty said:


> Not evil, any more than people in the military are evil. They just have a _wildly_ different view of people than you or I. You can't have people trying to kill you every day and not have a twisted view of how other people behave, I think. Like a protective dog, cops are going to view *everyone* as a threat to their safety unless they're handcuffed face-down on the pavement with a gun on them.
> 
> Regardless of your rights, you don't provoke people who think you are going to hurt them and who are ready and willing to kill you to prevent that. You keep the stick handy in case the protection-trained dog turns on you, but you don't go out of your way to piss it off, either.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't doubt it. They deal with a ton of stuff day in and day out with the worst of humanity.



We will just have to agree to disagree......

About provoking. I can agree if the provoking is actually doing something against the law. For instance I have a sports car. I hate having to have a front license plate. Some states don't require it.....For a while I had it on my dash. I was pulled over a couple times and the cop did have a right to do it (and ticket me once). So I put it on the front bumper. I was just asking for trouble and giving cop's a reason to pull me over. That's my fault no matter how stupid I think that law is. Or how I think it's just a way to generate revenue for the state etc... However if you aren't doing anything illegal like that poor guy then we will just have to agree to disagree......

I don't ever want a cop shot or hurt by some loon. But dealing with a ton of stuff every day with the worst in humanity (in some areas) isn't my problem. Lots of jobs are dangerous like coal miners and iron workers. If they can't handle the pressure get into another line of work. As law abiding citizens I/we deserve to not have our rights violated and bogus trumped up charges filed against us just because of what ever some might or might not have to go through....I hate to give this example but here goes. Some patient doesn't want a foreign doctor working on him at the hospital and lets it be known. He might be a racist (fill in the blank). That doesn't give the doctor the right (an out) to do less then the best he can in a life saving emergency surgery that patient needs....

Off topic but everyone have a great 4th......


----------



## selzer

It is interesting that the two guys that cuffed him were not the ones that shot the dog. A third officer backed them up and shot the dog. He may not have been privy to the exact reason the cops felt they had to handcuff the guy, and at that point he was dealing with a rottweiler that was possibly dangerous. 

It still stinks, but it makes it less worse in my opinion that the shooter was someone who may not have known the officers were just throwing around their muscle, because they could.

Still totally unnecessary, and mayham created by the first two _officers. _


----------



## mrg1429

It's shocking how may of you have made up your minds about this incident, before/ with out knowing the facts. The gentle man was being taken into custody for interfering with the officers while they were conducting their duties, not for video taping. He was yelling / and taunting , which distracted the officers from where their attention needed to be, he could have stood back and video taped all day , but he obviously had a hidden agenda. It was reported that he already has a law suit pending against that agency and he was simply provoking the officers to probably get more ammunition for his other lawsuit. The dog was doing what any good dog would do and paid the price because his person was P.O.S. For all with the dislike for police officers, I cant defend every action of every officer, but on behalf of the many dedicated officers who wear the badge for all the right reasons, I pray you never have to walk a day in our shoes.


----------



## selzer

mrg1429 said:


> It's shocking how may of you have made up your minds about this incident, before/ with out knowing the facts. The gentle man was being taken into custody for interfering with the officers while they were conducting their duties, not for video taping. He was yelling / and taunting , which distracted the officers from where their attention needed to be, he could have stood back and video taped all day , but he obviously had a hidden agenda. It was reported that he already has a law suit pending against that agency and he was simply provoking the officers to probably get more ammunition for his other lawsuit. The dog was doing what any good dog would do and paid the price because his person was P.O.S. For all with the dislike for police officers, I cant defend every action of every officer, but on behalf of the many dedicated officers who wear the badge for all the right reasons, I pray you never have to walk a day in our shoes.


I actually think it is more frightening that people feel a need to treat cops differently, to gather all the facts before making a decision even if they sit there and watch the entirety of a video that shows everything that the guy did. But that is not enough. If this WASN'T a couple of cops, they would all have all the information they need to condemn the lot. 

Cops SHOULD be way better than the average citizen in taking some videotaping, or taunts, as they have so much experience in that. These cops need to find another profession, and that city needs to dismiss them all. They don't cuff people around here for videotaping, walking large dogs, playing music loudly, or getting too close to officers--when that is about a block away. 

That guy totally complied with the cops even though they were handcuffing him for no reason whatsoever. And then his dog gets shot. If that isn't police brutality, than what is? Who of us wouldn't rather have our teeth knocked out than our dog shot in front of us?


----------



## Swifty

Fade2Black said:


> We will just have to agree to disagree......
> 
> About provoking. I can agree if the provoking is actually doing something against the law. For instance I have a sports car. I hate having to have a front license plate. Some states don't require it.....For a while I had it on my dash. I was pulled over a couple times and the cop did have a right to do it (and ticket me once). So I put it on the front bumper. I was just asking for trouble and giving cop's a reason to pull me over. That's my fault no matter how stupid I think that law is. Or how I think it's just a way to generate revenue for the state etc... However if you aren't doing anything illegal like that poor guy then we will just have to agree to disagree......


Nothing illegal? If what he was doing isn't illegal then it **** well should be. He drives by a _hostage situation_ blaring loud music, stops, gets out and starts walking toward the cops with a big dog. Then he starts yelling at the cops. I don't know if there's much more he could have done to get police to come down on his butt.

Seriously, this guy deserves very little sympathy for involving his dog in his dispute with 'the man'.



Fade2Black said:


> I don't ever want a cop shot or hurt by some loon. But dealing with a ton of stuff every day with the worst in humanity (in some areas) isn't my problem. Lots of jobs are dangerous like coal miners and iron workers. If they can't handle the pressure get into another line of work. As law abiding citizens I/we deserve to not have our rights violated and bogus trumped up charges filed against us just because of what ever some might or might not have to go through....I hate to give this example but here goes. Some patient doesn't want a foreign doctor working on him at the hospital and lets it be known. He might be a racist (fill in the blank). That doesn't give the doctor the right (an out) to do less then the best he can in a life saving emergency surgery that patient needs....
> 
> Off topic but everyone have a great 4th......


I don't think there are many who can handle the pressure. At least not well. I really do think it's at least somewhat similar to being in the military and after their service most have trouble adapting to civilian life. I think that kind of work almost inevitably warps how those who serve view other people. 

It isn't that some cops can't hack it (though certainly some can't), it's more that being in constant danger and seeing the worst things people can do to each other would grind down almost anyone.


----------



## GatorBytes

ohdev said:


> I don't know if anyone else posted this, but here is what went on before the video in the article OP posted. Same person recording.
> 
> Hawthorne, Ca Police Kill Dog(2)
> 
> Just my own personal opinion, but there was no need for the guy to drive by and then come back, leave his music blasting, and then crowd so close to the area the police are set up at. I don't blame the officer for shooting the dog, it charged the officers, and I don't believe one of the officers should have been bit before being justified to deal with the threat.
> 
> I also don't think police need to be trained to deal with animals, they're not AC. It's your own responsibility to control your animal and not do something stupid when you are out and about with them.* If you do something to warrant police attention, then that's on you, as are the consequences of your animals behavior*.


Interesting link

bit of attitude with his dog too...just a bit


----------



## boomer11

WOW. how can anyone watch the second video (which is a more complete version) and still defend this guy? the cops were there literally in the middle of trying to defuse a hostage situation with swat and automatic rifles and this guy stops just so he can provoke them. they are speaking into the speaker phone trying to talk to people in the house and this guy just continues to blare his music. 

i mean if the cops were arresting some drunk and you wanted to stick your nose in and get all in their face with a camera it'd be different. if you see 5+ cop cars and a swat van then its probably not the time act obnoxious. poor dog had to die because of an idiot owner. LAUGH OUT LOUD at anyone blind enough to defend his actions


----------



## Fade2Black

Here is another one. A cowardly trigger happy police officer shooting a 13 year old 29 pound Cocker Spaniel in his backyard.....

Concord: Owners of cocker spaniel shot by police seek apology - ContraCostaTimes.com


----------



## selzer

It is so easy to wait until we get the whole story when its cops on the hot seat, but the guy didn't turn his music down. He should have. I agree, he should have turned the radio off. Why leave the dumb car on, if the windows are down, if not to leave the music blaring. That was dumb. It was not worth shooting the dog over, but it was flat out dumb. I would wonder if the guy heard them tell him to turn it down, and could probably make a pretty good case that that would have been impossible, but he admits that he was told to turn the music down and didn't, pretty dumb. 

Pretty dumb to drive around with your dogs whole head sticking out the window. Not criminal, but dumb. 

Probably not things I would handcuff anyone for. But you could make the argument that it interfered with a police operation -- the music. 

Evenso, the cops should have had the guy secure the dog in the car better before putting cuffs on him for leaving his music blaring. I mean, what was that other thread where the cop was only coming to serve a warrant for a traffic violation, and shouldn't have gone in the back yard and shot the dog. I mean, they were handcuffing the guy for not complying with an officer's request to turn his radio down.

They should have told him to turn his music down when they told him to put the dog in the car. 

Dog dies because music was blasting. Sounds like something Chris Rock once said on the video he made on how to not get yourself messed up by the police. Turn that shtuff off! It's ignorant! 

The guy shouldn't have left his music on. 

The cops shouldn't have killed his dog.


----------



## llombardo

You know what I don't understand? If a regular person is getting attacked and shoots the dog they get arrested, if a regular person tries helping a person that is getting attacked and shoots the dog they get arrested. If a police officer is getting attacked they shoot the dog and it goes away? Just because the officer has a badge doesn't mean that they can do these things. If I can't defend myself from a dog without consequences then a police officer shouldn't be able to either.


----------



## selzer

llombardo said:


> You know what I don't understand? If a regular person is getting attacked and shoots the dog they get arrested, if a regular person tries helping a person that is getting attacked and shoots the dog they get arrested. If a police officer is getting attacked they shoot the dog and it goes away? Just because the officer has a badge doesn't mean that they can do these things. If I can't defend myself from a dog without consequences then a police officer shouldn't be able to either.


But human life IS more important than canine life, especially in the law. If that officer is trying to get three little kids out of a building where a guy is holding them at gun point, he shouldn't be running to his car to get a catch pole, or screwing around choosing bear spray or tasers to stop your dog from letting him do his job. 

If a cop is out in the evening taking his dog to the dog park and another dog runs up to him, he shouldn't pull out his gun and shoot the other dog. While he is being a civilian, he should do what any other civilian does to protect their dog from a possible threat -- this usually does not involve guns.

It lookes like most of the cops there diverted their attention to the dude with the dog. Not a good thing when you got a serious situation going on inside. I still don't think they handled it great. One guy could have walked over to the guy and told him to get in the car with his dog, roll up his windows, shut off his music, and get out of there. 

The thing is, the guy heard them tell him to turn the crap down or off. But he was right there in the middle of that loud crap. Every cop there should have wondered whether or not he could've heard the order. 

The guy has a grievance against the cops. I think that does make you very sensitive to what cops are doing. While looking at these u-tubes, another u-tube came up where the same police department was giving tickets out. They set up a sting operation where a few civilian-looking guys would start to step into a cross walk, and any of the vehicles that were in the process of driving through, would get ticketed. The reason the guy was videotaping this, was because the night before the cops stopped him for riding his bicycle in the street -- uhm, hello! that is where bicycles are SUPPOSED to be ridden -- and he even says that. 

The guy should have turned the music off.


----------



## nhstadt

Clyde said:


> Where have you heard pepper spray will piss a dog off? I would think it would work the same as it does on a bear, cougar or other animal?


The stuff marketed for bears is much stronger than what the police carry for use on humans. I've taken a shot of store bought pepper spray in the chest and neck and face (the proper application) on a bet, and yes it was TERRIBLE, but not completely debilitating. I would venture to say a scared/protective/aggressive dog's threshold for pain is assuredly much higher than mine. 



Kayos and Havoc said:


> As we all own one of those breeds 'known to be aggressive' I think I will disagree with you. That statement is quite prejudiced against many breeds. And - according to recent studies, there are a few breeds of small dogs that have been shown to the more aggressive dogs. So the next time I see my nrighbors doxie and Chichauhau lunge at me I think I can just shoot them?
> 
> Just because a dog lunges does not mean it intends to bite you.


I'm not gonna argue about the neurotic little chihuahuas, but as was stated by other members, they really are not a threat to me. A 70-130 pound rott/GSD/Mastiff/etc. is. Like I said really any large dog, if not properly handled could be seen as such. Especially if it is lunging at me and I am unfamiliar with the dog and its intent. Put yourself in the officers' shoes for a minute. You have a large rott (whose owner you just slapped in cuffs and is visibly struggling against you and your partners) come running up and lunging at you possibly in an aggressive fashion.... Are you going to get yourself or your partner bit, possibly severely and not get home safe and sound that night, or are you going to be proactive and deal with the threat the only way you can effectively? You can't exactly tell a dog to freeze, put his hands up and arrest him. I'm not waiting to get bit or get my buddy bit before I handle the situation. 

I love dogs just as much as anyone on here, and I do think the situation escalated to a point it shouldn't have, with fault on both the "bystander" and the police, but if its me- sight alignment, trigger squeeze.... you have the right to defend yourself from a dog just as much as you do another human being.


----------



## TrickyShepherd

It's a very sad video... I agree there. It brought me to tears. Poor dog was just doing his job. 

I'm not getting into shooting the dog. I don't think it was 100% correct, but there's not much I can comment on without being there and in that situation. The dog didn't look dangerous to me. He looked like a very stable dog. But I wasn't there, and I have a lot of experience with dogs.

Just wanted to add though... and this is skipped over a lot: We do NOT know what he said to them... or what they said to him/asked him to do/etc. Freedom of Speech only goes so far when it comes to certain situations. When it comes to Law Enforcement they have the right to protect themselves. If this guy said any sort of threat or something they can take as a threat.... they absolutely can do what they need to (yes, even cuff you). You can't threaten an officer. So if anyone decides to go police the police.... remember your freedom of speech won't cover you if you issue a threat (or something that can be seen as one). Careful with that. This happened in a bad area. I'm sure the cops are uneasy and on high alert.... a big crime just occurred and they are in an area where they are not liked. They sure will question anyone who doesn't comply, threatens, or over steps the law.

I'm not saying any side is right or wrong. Not getting into it, not enough information. I wanted to remind everyone these types of things are MUCH more than just visual actions. We don't have all the information... 

Our country *is* a great place to be, but you have to understand the Constitution 100% or you can unfortunately find yourself in some trouble.... good or bad person... ill intent or not. There's a lot more to, let's say... Freedom of Speech, then most seem to think.


----------



## Fade2Black

^^^ ^^^

I respectfully say Yes we sure do. Mr. Rosby was held overnight in jail on "suspicion of obstruction of justice". If he made any kind of threat. Even a minor one he would have been charged with making terroristic threats so fast it would make your head spin.....

What is being skipped over is one of the most ridiculous idiotic quotes ever heard. "Hawthorne police Lt. Scott 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."<<<<<

That's an insult to everyone's intelligence. That the police are protecting Rosby from his OWN DOG!! and it's one of the reason's he was shot....

No one violates the Constitution more then the Police. With no consequences.....


----------



## Syaoransbear

It's irrelevant what he was saying or doing to the police officers because he accepted his arrest. My issue is that I don't believe there was any reason they couldn't have let him get his dog once it jumped out of the vehicle and was sniffing around, or even while it was completely hanging out of the vehicle barking up a storm and clearly going to jump out. What did they think would happen, the dog would just be totally okay with them taking away his owner while he wandered around free as a bird? Or was totally willing to stay put in the vehicle with the windows wide open? Have they never encountered a dog before?


----------



## TrickyShepherd

Fade2Black said:


> ^^^  ^^^
> 
> I respectfully say Yes we sure do. Mr. Rosby was held overnight in jail on "suspicion of obstruction of justice". If he made any kind of threat. Even a minor one he would have been charged with making terroristic threats so fast it would make your head spin.....
> 
> What is being skipped over is one of the most ridiculous idiotic quotes ever heard. "Hawthorne police Lt. Scott 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."<<<<<
> 
> That's an insult to everyone's intelligence. That the police are protecting Rosby from his OWN DOG!! and it's one of the reason's he was shot....
> 
> No one violates the Constitution more then the Police. With no consequences.....


He's not a terrorist. Terrorist threaten the Country with weapons of mass destruction (like bombs)... not their mouths. Also, not every time do they slap those on there. And on top of that, the news doesn't always know everything. Don't think everything you read is 100% accurate. 

I'm not getting into the comment, because arguing about this stuff without even being there, having all the information, and knowing the situation is silly. Also, that comment means nothing to me in this case. I already said I don't agree with the dog being shot. I'm not sure what you're trying to convince me with there.....

Everyone breaks the Constitution. Interesting fact: ... Madison.. the person who wrote the Constitution was charged with being unconstitutional. Business break them, citizens, cops, presidents, congress, everyone! Corruption is everywhere. Does that mean we should get rid of all businesses? Kick out all citizens? No more presidents? Get rid of our government?... No, not at all. That goes for cops too. Do they have corruption? Absolutely! Should we get rid of them? Heck no! I would hate to live in a country without police or any first responders!

This is not even what I was saying though. What I said was.... Everyone should know and UNDERSTAND the Constitution. Many get in trouble because they were ignorant. "It's my RIGHT!".... No... No it's not. Read again. Just like you have the right to hate anyone you want.... Can you go and threaten them? No... that's a hate crime... You will get in trouble with the law. That's why I said sitting here claiming "That side" is wrong or "this side" is wrong with just this video and some journalist reports... and the "Victims" account... is silly. We do not have all the facts. We weren't there. You can't even hear what he said in the video. What most people don't know is a threat (even vocally) to police can absolutely escalate to arrest. Your Freedom of Speech DOES have exceptions. 

I hate seeing animals get hurt. I feel terrible for this dog. However, I'm not taking sides with the "police vs. videotaping man" argument..... not enough information. Poor dog had to get the worst punishment... very sad.


----------



## trcy

They just had this on our local news. The thought is they will find it was a justified shooting, but they handled the situation very wrong. They gave specifics, but all I can recall right now is they are trained to handle hecklers in a crowd and that should not make them react. The other thing is they failed to ensure the dog was under control and then over reacted.


----------



## TrickyShepherd

Syaoransbear said:


> It's irrelevant what he was saying or doing to the police officers because he accepted his arrest. My issue is that I don't believe there was any reason they couldn't have let him get his dog once it jumped out of the vehicle and was sniffing around, or even while it was completely hanging out of the vehicle barking up a storm and clearly going to jump out. What did they think would happen, the dog would just be totally okay with them taking away his owner while he wandered around free as a bird? Or was totally willing to stay put in the vehicle with the windows wide open? Have they never encountered a dog before?


....If you break the law, it doesn't matter if you accept arrest.... you're still getting arrested. IF he threatened.... then yes, his words DO matter (it's a crime here in the US. You can not threaten law enforcement as it is considered legitimate and self defense is always allowed). Accepting helps.. but doesn't get you out of it.

He did accept arrest at first.... but then resisted. Why would the police then ask him to go further contain his animal? Think like someone who's life is on the line every second of his day. The man could get a weapon.... the man could send his dog to attack.... he could drive away and resist arrest further... he could even take that car and use THAT as a weapon! That does happen! As an officer, you HAVE to make these assumptions about people. Not making those assumptions will get them killed.

They are there to protect the people (including themselves)... NOT the dog.

I don't have any opinions to who was right or wrong... like I said before, not enough information. 

Moral of the story.... Don't resist arrest! If you KNOW you are innocent... Know your Constitution... Know your rights and liberties. 5th and 6th being a big one..... Shut up and get a lawyer. If you resist, you are only causing more issues for yourself. Wait to fight in court... not physically. Corruptions is there... not saying it isn't. Whether he was right or wrong.... or whether the cops were right or wrong is irrelevant here (again.. no information to back that up). He resisted.


----------



## Fade2Black

You can get arrested and charged with making "terroristic threats" for having a violent tatoo......

Man with violent tattoo gets probation for threat to Minneapolis cop - TwinCities.com

We will just agree to disagree..... The guy didn't threaten the police or he would have been charged with more then "suspicion of obstruction of justice"....

(edit) 10-9-8-7.....until the police shoot another dog....


----------



## Mrs.K

TrickyShepherd said:


> ....If you break the law, it doesn't matter if you accept arrest.... you're still getting arrested. IF he threatened.... then yes, his words DO matter (it's a crime here in the US. You can not threaten law enforcement as it is considered legitimate and self defense is always allowed). Accepting helps.. but doesn't get you out of it.
> 
> He did accept arrest at first.... but then resisted. Why would the police then ask him to go further contain his animal? Think like someone who's life is on the line every second of his day. The man could get a weapon.... the man could send his dog to attack.... he could drive away and resist arrest further... he could even take that car and use THAT as a weapon! That does happen! As an officer, you HAVE to make these assumptions about people. Not making those assumptions will get them killed.
> 
> They are there to protect the people (including themselves)... NOT the dog.
> 
> I don't have any opinions to who was right or wrong... like I said before, not enough information.
> 
> Moral of the story.... Don't resist arrest! If you KNOW you are innocent... Know your Constitution... Know your rights and liberties. 5th and 6th being a big one..... Shut up and get a lawyer. If you resist, you are only causing more issues for yourself. Wait to fight in court... not physically. Corruptions is there... not saying it isn't. Whether he was right or wrong.... or whether the cops were right or wrong is irrelevant here (again.. no information to back that up). He resisted.


He wasnt breaking any laws!

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Fade2Black

llombardo said:


> You know what I don't understand? If a regular person is getting attacked and shoots the dog they get arrested, if a regular person tries helping a person that is getting attacked and shoots the dog they get arrested. If a police officer is getting attacked they shoot the dog and it goes away? Just because the officer has a badge doesn't mean that they can do these things. If I can't defend myself from a dog without consequences then a police officer shouldn't be able to either.



If you leave your GSD in a vehicle three days and he dies you get charged with cruelty to an animal. If you kill or harm a police dog it's a felony..... Well unless your a cop. Then you get a free pass......

Group wants charges against officer over K-9 death


----------



## Walperstyle

Fade2Black said:


> If you leave your GSD in a vehicle three days and he dies you get charged with cruelty to an animal. If you kill or harm a police dog it's a felony..... Well unless your a cop. Then you get a free pass......
> 
> Group wants charges against officer over K-9 death



I don't mean to be an ass, however, My GSD has gotten into some stupid situations on his own. The link you posted says the cop said something along the lines that the dog must have let itself in the vehicle. Strange things have happened.


----------



## Jack's Dad

Fade2Black and others. If you must blame someone, how about the criminals who caused the police to be there in the first place.

Hawthorne is a crime ridden city and I think it's a pretty safe bet that the bystander and the police are pretty familiar with one another. 

I've personally found that by not committing crimes I don't have problems with the police.

There are crummy cops, clergy, doctors, salespeople, firefighters and on and on.

Some of you might want to vacation in Hawthorne and when you do you'll be glad they have some kind of LEOs there. Enjoy your vacation. Maybe you can set the cops straight while you are there.


----------



## Fade2Black

Walperstyle said:


> I don't mean to be an ass, however, My GSD has gotten into some stupid situations on his own. The link you posted says the cop said something along the lines that the dog must have let itself in the vehicle. Strange things have happened.



I know your not. I have very thick skin any way.....

I believe you. But I bet you also don't leave your dog alone for three days either if you go away. At the least he was negligent, and nothing was done. I say there was also a coverup. He got away with it because he was a cop (IMO)......


----------



## TrickyShepherd

Mrs.K said:


> He wasnt breaking any laws!
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


Please read what I typed.

I've said many times.... I'm not accusing anyone. Neither party, due to lack of information and knowledge of the situation. I'm not defending anyone. The dog... yes... the people, no. 

I said "IF" he threatened.... not that he did. Since we can not hear his or the cops words... we don't know this. But that IS something that could have happened that this video wouldn't show us. That is also absolute grounds for arrest.

I also said... Corruption is everywhere. Innocent people get arrested. Is our system perfect? Nope. That's why I said... 

_"Moral of the story.... Don't resist arrest! If you KNOW you are innocent... Know your Constitution... Know your rights and liberties. 5th and 6th being a big one..... Shut up and get a lawyer. If you resist, you are only causing more issues for yourself. Wait to fight in court... not physically. Corruptions is there... not saying it isn't. Whether he was right or wrong.... or whether the cops were right or wrong is irrelevant here (again.. no information to back that up). He resisted."_

Because now... whether he IS or IS NOT guilty... he's just given them something to go off of. It is illegal to resist arrest. IF you are innocent, you give them as little to go off of as you can. As they say: 456. 4th Amendment: Without probable cause they can NOT search you.. they have to have a warrant. Say no. 5th: Shut up! Right to remain silent... use it! You could most certainly use words wrong and get yourself in serious trouble... so just stop talking. 6th: Lawyer time. If you are innocent, and know your rights.... you'll have a much better chance. Resisting arrest is stupid, and only digs your trench.

I'm not claiming anyone is anything..... Just simply stating there's a lot we don't know since we were not there. There's also a lot he did, that regardless of intent, guilty or not, breaking a law or not... he did not help himself OR his dog any. This is common here in this country.... no one really knows their laws, rights, and liberties. This is why there is corruption... people allow it..... or they are the ones causing it (whether they know it or not).


----------



## TrickyShepherd

Fade2Black said:


> You can get arrested and charged with making "terroristic threats" for having a violent tatoo......
> 
> Man with violent tattoo gets probation for threat to Minneapolis cop - TwinCities.com
> 
> We will just agree to disagree..... The guy didn't threaten the police or he would have been charged with more then "suspicion of obstruction of justice"....
> 
> (edit) 10-9-8-7.....until the police shoot another dog....



That's the words they described in a paper by a journalist (I'll never consider them a credible source).... not the name of the exact charge. Also...yes, he got charged because the badge # on the "pig" with an officer's uniform being shot..... was in fact an officer of that town that he's had run ins with... Yep.. that's a threat to law enforcement... Yes, that is against the law. Depends how the courts want to see it when it comes to sentencing. It's really all up to them. It wouldn't matter how they want to see it though.... a threat to law enforcement... in any form... is illegal. By definition, that's not 'terrorism'.... The Boston Bombing.... that was terrorism. But, I'm not the courts... I don't make the sentencing.

There's nothing to agree to disagree with what I've said. It's the law. I am not stating an opinion. I'm not sure what you're trying to convince me of.... I said we don't have enough information to know exactly what happened. I never said he DID, I said it's a possible cause of arrest in a situation like this. In the end the court makes the decision.... not the cops. Since I wasn't there.... I have no opinion on who's right or wrong.


----------



## Fade2Black

TrickyShepherd said:


> That's the words they described in a paper by a journalist (I'll never consider them a credible source).... not the name of the exact charge. Also...yes, he got charged because the badge # on the "pig" with an officer's uniform being shot..... was in fact an officer of that town that he's had run ins with... Yep.. that's a threat to law enforcement... Yes, that is against the law. Depends how the courts want to see it when it comes to sentencing. It's really all up to them. It wouldn't matter how they want to see it though.... a threat to law enforcement... in any form... is illegal. By definition, that's not 'terrorism'.... The Boston Bombing.... that was terrorism. But, I'm not the courts... I don't make the sentencing.
> 
> There's nothing to agree to disagree with what I've said. It's the law. I am not stating an opinion. I'm not sure what you're trying to convince me of.... I said we don't have enough information to know exactly what happened. I never said he DID, I said it's a possible cause of arrest in a situation like this. In the end the court makes the decision.... not the cops. Since I wasn't there.... I have no opinion on who's right or wrong.



Yes there is. We disagree on what a "terroristic threat is". You are confusing it with "terrorist threat". They are two separate things. They aren't the same. I never said "terrorist" you did.....

I think there is more then enough information on weather or not Mr. Rosby made any threat to police. He didn't or he would have been charged.....

I have an opinion on who's right or wrong (the Police). You don't....

and others (which I am 2 lazy to list).....


----------



## Dainerra

Syaoransbear said:


> It's irrelevant what he was saying or doing to the police officers because he accepted his arrest. My issue is that I don't believe there was any reason they couldn't have let him get his dog once it jumped out of the vehicle and was sniffing around, or even while it was completely hanging out of the vehicle barking up a storm and clearly going to jump out. What did they think would happen, the dog would just be totally okay with them taking away his owner while he wandered around free as a bird? Or was totally willing to stay put in the vehicle with the windows wide open? Have they never encountered a dog before?


because once you handcuff someone you can't just take the cuffs off. The guy could have taken off running. Could have jumped in his car and hit an officer or bystander fleeing the scene. Might have had a gun under the seat. A ton of "what-ifs" that mean, NO they couldn't just let him go over and secure his dog. And how would he secure it? Roll up the windows and lock the doors? 
"Hey officers, follow me back to my house and let me put my dog away"?? 

It's not the cops' job to worry about his dog. Period. End of story. Once the scene is under control, animal control is contacted and the dog is taken to the pound. Just like a tow truck is called and the car is impounded. But nothing is done until the scene is under control and there is no chance of anyone getting hurt. 

And I hate the title of this thread. This guy isn't a "bystander" He immersed himself in the action. The title makes it sound like the guy was just quietly walking down the street and the cops shot his dog as he was quietly walking along. He was an active participant in his arrest.


----------



## Dainerra

Fade2Black said:


> If you leave your GSD in a vehicle three days and he dies you get charged with cruelty to an animal. If you kill or harm a police dog it's a felony..... Well unless your a cop. Then you get a free pass......
> 
> Group wants charges against officer over K-9 death


there are plenty of times that it is legal for you to kill or harm a dog. Protecting yourself. Protecting another person. Protecting livestock. I lost a chicken to a dog a couple weeks ago. I don't know who it belongs to, just that it was a black dog. So, legally, I can shoot ANY dog that enters my yard. Period. 
Nothing will be done. But I can make the owner (if they were found) pay for any damages and pay for removal of the dead dog from my property. 

It is the OWNER'S job to protect his dog. Not mine. Not the cops. Not the general public. 

Terroristic threatening is a pretty wide net. It can cover anything from calling in a bomb threat to screaming over the fence at your neighbor that you'll kick his a** if his dog poops in your yard again. 

It sucks that the dog was shot. But, there isn't much that the cops can do in situations like this. 
Let him put the dog back in the car and roll up the windows? dog could die from the heat and people would be screaming it was the cops fault.

Let him go put the dog back in the car and the guy takes off and runs over a kid while fleeing the scene? It's the cops' fault, why did they take off the cuffs?

Let him go and he runs away? It's the cops' fault - lots of money spent hunting down a guy that they let get away.

Stand around waiting for the guy to call someone to come get the dog? wasting taxpayers' money standing around babysitting a dog. 

There is no way to make everyone happy. The easiest solution? don't stop to antagonize the cops if you have your dog in the car. And that was his entire purpose. To try to get something exciting on video or to catch the cops doing something wrong.
Well, he got exactly what he was looking for.


----------



## Dainerra

Fade2Black said:


> I think there is more then enough information on weather or not Mr. Rosby made any threat to police. He didn't or he would have been charged.....
> 
> I have an opinion on who's right or wrong (the Police). You don't....
> 
> and others (which I am 2 lazy to list).....


no, whether or not you actually did something actually has very little relation to whether or not the DA decides to charge you with something. There is publictiy, there is the amount of evidence. There is the type of evidence. And, most important, DAs are elected and there is the "will I not get re-elected if I try this case" factor. 
It's the cops job to arrest someone if it seems that they might have done something wrong. It's the DAs job to decide whether or not charges will be filed.


Powered by SelectionLinks​about this ad


----------



## DJGinger

The guy was passively trolling. 
Not directly, but he is a person who was in a lawsuit with police dept. for hard treatment and tactics. 
So he had spent time video taping their common practices to bolster his case. 
He was doing NOTHING illegal. Which is why he had that smug smile and was in no fear of arrest. They probably called in his car tag and found out who he was and were advised with something obscure and generalized enough to remove his offending presence. He was trying to catch them doing door to doors and illegal questioning. 

The actual police event was half down the block and he did not pass the barricade until beckoned the first time to be instructed about stereo; though the one blasting next to the trolly hecklers filming it was not a problem?
*He could not roll up windows in front of Police. . . it is ILLEGAL to put an animal in an enclosed vehicle in California.*

Because they know what he was doing and had no legal way to stop him, they were full of ANGER adrenaline and took ot out on the dog. End story. BAD COPS.

The dog jumped out of car but not to defend his owner though the two voyeurs made it seem so. The dog was actually calm and well behaved. he stopped to sniff the grass and post while trying to get to the owner. The cops lunging at him and taking hostile stance scared him, he made a empty lunge. And before he could be calmed they were chasing him off and he started barking and posturing and they did not shoot him... they ANGRILY filled him FULL OF HOLES (like they wanted to do to the owner who is after the LAPD for racial badgering). I want to see a lawsuit since those bastards can't get the proper animal cruelty charges had they been civilians.


----------



## Dainerra

oh, so he wasn't doing anything wrong. He just randomly stops at crime scenes and anywhere there are police to try to catch them doing something wrong. And he has a smug condescending attitude and a willingness to skirt the edges of the law.
But the cops are the ones who are vindictive and looking for revenge on him? They are the ones with the chips on their shoulders?


----------



## DJGinger

Fade2Black said:


> If you leave your GSD in a vehicle three days and he dies you get charged with cruelty to an animal. If you kill or harm a police dog it's a felony..... Well unless your a cop. Then you get a free pass......
> 
> Group wants charges against officer over K-9 death


But it is nice to know that so many other officers posting think he shouldn't get a way with it.

Even if he is not right for the job and does not consider his K9 his partner & an officer.. he should at least consider Officer Pooch a hard replace and expensive piece of equipment. Prolly leaves guns in his car...

But don't forget that bozo in Phoenix that left his dog in car.
Was a big man and blamed his kids! Check ODMP dot com.  a major cause f K9 death


----------



## Fade2Black

http://www.facebook.com/justiceforava/info

May 10, 2011 Brittany Moore called the police asking for help after getting threatening phone calls. What she got instead was her 4yr old German Shepherd gunned down and killed right in front of her.
Description
On Tuesday night, May 10, 2011, Brittany Moore called The Town of Erie Police Department to report harassing telephone calls. What she recieved instead was her beautiful four-year-old German Shepard Dog, Ava, gunned down and killed by Officer Jamie Chester. This is Chester's second time shooting and killing a dog in his capacity as a police officer for The Town of Erie. Brittany Moore has disputed the Erie Police Department's account of the incident, claiming that Ava had turned away from Chester on command, officer Chester then shot Ava in the back. 


At least Colorado has recently done something about trigger happy thug cops murdering dogs.....

Two bill signings mark dog day at the Legislature | Colorado Statesman

*Dog Protection Act*
Perhaps the meatiest of the bills, however, was SB 226, which requires police officers to allow owners an opportunity to first save their dog when an officer is responding to a nonviolent call. It also creates a volunteer task force, including animal welfare experts, to create a three-hour training webinar for law enforcement.
The measure comes as state officials have reported more than 40 incidents in which law enforcement has shot family dogs. 
Brittany Moore, a 30-year-old Erie resident, became the face of the movement after a traumatic incident in May 2011 in which an Erie police officer, Jamie Chester, shot and killed Moore’s 4-year-old German Shepherd, Ava. The bullet severed Ava’s spinal cord, ultimately killing her. The rawhide bone she had in her mouth at the time of the shooting fell to the ground as Ava let out an awful squeal.
“It doesn’t just go away,” Moore said of her harrowing experience. “We’ll always miss her, and she’ll always be in our hearts.


----------



## ohdev

DJGinger said:


> He was doing NOTHING illegal. Which is why he had that smug smile and was in no fear of arrest. They probably called in his car tag and found out who he was and were advised with something obscure and generalized enough to remove his offending presence. He was trying to catch them doing door to doors and illegal questioning.


Could you please provide a source for this information? Everything I've read has said that they were on an active crime scene and he deliberately denied the police when asked to turn down or off his music. It was interfering with their communication, and they were using a bull horn to begin with.



DJGinger said:


> *He could not roll up windows in front of Police. . . it is ILLEGAL to put an animal in an enclosed vehicle in California.*


Enclosing the animal completely and leaving the windows down a reasonable distance so there's airflow but no chance of the animal escaping are two different things. Honestly I'm surprised no one here isn't outraged that the dog was able to hang out the window in the first place, it's extremely unsafe when driving to begin with.



DJGinger said:


> Because they know what he was doing and had no legal way to stop him, they were full of ANGER adrenaline and took ot out on the dog. End story. BAD COPS.
> 
> The dog jumped out of car but not to defend his owner though the two voyeurs made it seem so. The dog was actually calm and well behaved. he stopped to sniff the grass and post while trying to get to the owner. The cops lunging at him and taking hostile stance scared him, he made a empty lunge. And before he could be calmed they were chasing him off and he started barking and posturing and they did not shoot him... they ANGRILY filled him FULL OF HOLES (like they wanted to do to the owner who is after the LAPD for racial badgering). I want to see a lawsuit since those bastards can't get the proper animal cruelty charges had they been civilians.


I'm sorry, but this is a bunch of bull. The dog acted spontaneously when the man began to struggle, it was in no way the cops fault for the dog aggressing. I feel like we weren't watching the same video, because the cops definitely didn't lunge at the dog either. The officer reached for either the collar or the leash, to which the dog jumped back and then lunged at the officer. There was no 'angrily filling him with holes', the dog lunged at them, the officer neutralized the threat. I suppose the officer should have been bitten to justify shooting the dog?


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

People criticize government and government employees all the time.

I feel sorry for teachers, some of the most dedicated people there are and then painted with the broadest of negative brushes in the recent past as though they were an abomination to society. Yet that's o.k. they can get dragged through the mud and they rarily get called 'heros' yet for all of that most teachers are very dedicated and care deeply about the children in their classes.

The police, however, you dare point out that they are crossing over lines that infringe our rights and all of sudden we're all 'cop haters'.

I read the declaration of independence this morning as I do on every 4th of July and thank goodness our founders understood that government is there to serve the people, not the other way around. Freedom is only maintained through standing up to abuses of power.

Rosby had an attitude, but he did not break any laws. Therefore the police are at fault for escalating a *NON *violent situation into a violent one.

If I did that I would be put in jail!





Courtney said:


> Huh? My friend, you and I are on totally different ends of this conversation and views of the police as a whole. No biggie.
> 
> I personally have never experienced a bad encounter with a police officer or witnessed unethical behavior. They are supported in my small community & we pass their levies.
> 
> There are tools in every profession. Trust me, I do not defend every single police officer, no way. If there is an abuse of power, the law is broken, procedure not followed they should be held accountable. I am just not part of the witch hunt and posting police officers name on the internet and rallying the troops against them.


----------



## boomer11

hahahah i like how if you read this thread, the people that are backing this guy are so blinded that they just make stuff up. its like we're not even watching the same video. in what country do you uncuff someone for their convenience? that cop that shot the dog sure looked like he was full of anger. i mean if you have a credible realistic point to make then make it, but dont make stuff up. it makes you look like a joke


----------



## GatorBytes

DJGinger said:


> They probably called in his car tag and found out who he was and were advised with something obscure and generalized enough to remove his offending presence. *He was trying to catch them doing door to doors and illegal questioning. *
> 
> The actual police event was half down the block and he did not pass the barricade until beckoned the first time to be instructed about stereo; though the one blasting next to the trolly hecklers filming it was not a problem?.


LOL...Just to be clear, it takes a SWAT team (with satellite) , 7 and up LEO's in 7-9 cop cars to go door to door to ask illegal questions and just 1 innocent bystander (despite the dozens of other bystanders/onlookers - who stayed back on the otherside of the intersection) to "catch" the police and make sure the armed suspects that were held up in the house rights were not violated?

This man had an audience and he played to it...he hoped he would be a victim to the police so he too could cash in on the million dollar settlements of those before him.

His dog is dead. Stupid owner


----------



## Syaoransbear

Dainerra said:


> because once you handcuff someone you can't just take the cuffs off. The guy could have taken off running. Could have jumped in his car and hit an officer or bystander fleeing the scene. Might have had a gun under the seat. A ton of "what-ifs" that mean, NO they couldn't just let him go over and secure his dog. And how would he secure it? Roll up the windows and lock the doors?
> "Hey officers, follow me back to my house and let me put my dog away"??
> 
> It's not the cops' job to worry about his dog. Period. End of story. Once the scene is under control, animal control is contacted and the dog is taken to the pound. Just like a tow truck is called and the car is impounded. But nothing is done until the scene is under control and there is no chance of anyone getting hurt.
> 
> And I hate the title of this thread. This guy isn't a "bystander" He immersed himself in the action. The title makes it sound like the guy was just quietly walking down the street and the cops shot his dog as he was quietly walking along. He was an active participant in his arrest.


He walked right up to them, turned around, and waited for the police to finish their leisurely walk towards him and arrest him. I really doubt he'd run away, because he could have done so when he walked to his car. Instead he walked back. And based on what he was being arrest for(being noisy), they have no reason to suspect he is a violent offender and would start running over people.

And yes, he would put the dog in the car and roll up the windows(not all the way), and then animal control could be called to collect the dog. I'm sure there is some sort of procedure for when police arrest people with dogs. I don't think they just let them run free.

It _is_ the cop's job to worry about his dog if they knew anything about dogs. And there was plenty to be worried about when the dog was barking at the police and clearly going to jump out of the window. Was _anyone_ here surprised that the dog reacted to the police officers for handling its owner? I don't even think non-dog people would have been surprised that the rottweiler came out of the vehicle and approached the police officers.


----------



## Blanketback

Hmmm....if I had a history with the police, and had a pending court case against them, would I go out of my way to draw attention to myself like this guy did? Not for all the money in the world! And especially not with my dog in tow!!! This was totally avoidable, and the fact that he didn't break any laws is a moot point. He broke the law of common sense. Too bad his innocent dog had to pay the price.

OT: I wonder how many people who like to taunt LE would interfere with a regular assault going on, with only regular people involved? Would they pretend they didn't see anything and just mind their own business? Or would they rise to the occasion and try to help someone? I'm always curious about that.


----------



## DaniFani

boomer11 said:


> hahahah i like how if you read this thread, the people that are backing this guy are so blinded that they just make stuff up. its like we're not even watching the same video. in what country do you uncuff someone for their convenience? that cop that shot the dog sure looked like he was full of anger. i mean if you have a credible realistic point to make then make it, but dont make stuff up. it makes you look like a joke


I'm staying out of this, at this point, after the videos and FACTUAL background information about this joker I can't believe anyone would support him or say he did NOTHING wrong....and I'm encouraged by the majority of responses from posters like above. :thumbup:


----------



## Courtney

What in the sam hill are you talking about?




Gwenhwyfair said:


> People criticize government and government employees all the time.
> 
> I feel sorry for teachers, some of the most dedicated people there are and then painted with the broadest of negative brushes in the recent past as though they were an abomination to society. Yet that's o.k. they can get dragged through the mud and they rarily get called 'heros' yet for all of that most teachers are very dedicated and care deeply about the children in their classes.
> 
> The police, however, you dare point out that they are crossing over lines that infringe our rights and all of sudden we're all 'cop haters'.
> 
> I read the declaration of independence this morning as I do on every 4th of July and thank goodness our founders understood that government is there to serve the people, not the other way around. Freedom is only maintained through standing up to abuses of power.
> 
> Rosby had an attitude, but he did not break any laws. Therefore the police are at fault for escalating a *NON *violent situation into a violent one.
> 
> If I did that I would be put in jail!


----------



## PupperLove

Well, that's what happens when you call the attention of the police, and fail to contain your dog. Simple story. Who DIDN'T see that coming? 

I haven't read this whole thread, but it's a shame what lack of common sense can really do.

I completely agree with Dainerra on this. It's the cops job to worry about this guy first. They can't say "Sir, please contain your dog so we can talk with you." Dog containment in many areas is a standing law. If a dog comes in the way, it generally goes down. That's pretty universal now a days and not unheard of. It was his job as an owner to roll that window up after he put that leash down.

Sad story. Poor pup was just trying to protect his owner.


----------



## DaniFani

Courtney said:


> What in the sam hill are you talking about?


Hahaha, I love the phrase, "what in the Sam Hill..." Makes me laugh every time, especially in the context of this ridiculousness. 

I'd also like to point out, this is a DOG forum, so there is going to be postings about dogs in the news from all over the country alllll the time. If this was a police forum, or if I did a search for "violence against police," and made a post every time an officer was shot at, shot, stabbed, punched, kicked, etc....then people could say," society is getting so violent, just LOOK at all these attacks." But the fact is, it's rare. In the grand scheme of things, ratio-wise, more people are helped, more dangerous situations are diffused, and most officers NEVER discharge their weapon throughout their ENTIRE career. It's so obtuse to read a few news stories about dogs on a DOG FORUM and make the assumption, "police are getting out of control, police abuse their powers constantly, police shoot any dog they see...blah blah." To me it's silly and ignorant to pass judgement so quickly. It's just as bad as saying every pit bull will bite, or every GSD is nervy etc....OP you believe that too many people are discriminatory against pitbulls, this is the same witch hunt crap. 

I don't know the whole situation, but from what I've seen the guy was an idiot. People seem to not be thinking about the fact that the police were involved in an ACTIVE hostile situation. If you were being held at gun point and this idiot pulls up with his music blaring and the police were trying to help you, but couldn't hear, what the heck would you think. "Oh hang on gun man, this man wants to talk to the police and bring his dog out.....and we should probably let him finish his song....I mean, he has rights too...." Man oh man.....lol. 

And to whoever said, "if they can't handle the pressure they should be in a different profession." Let's put that line of thought into the dog world. Lets take a stable,even tempered, solid nerved, dog. JUST because he is ABLE to handle it, does NOT give his owner the right to expose him to abuse, over the top corrections, etc....if a kid ran up behind the same dog, smacked him in his man hood, and the dog swung around and nipped at the kid, would it be the dogs fault??? Most screaming, "cops fault, he should be able to handle taunting, loud music distractions in a dangerous situation, etc" would be quick to say the child being bit was all the child's fault......oh well, I'm sure this guy will have plenty more law suits in his life to line his pockets....


----------



## TrickyShepherd

Dainerra said:


> no, whether or not you actually did something actually has very little relation to whether or not the DA decides to charge you with something. There is publictiy, there is the amount of evidence. There is the type of evidence. And, most important, DAs are elected and there is the "will I not get re-elected if I try this case" factor.
> It's the cops job to arrest someone if it seems that they might have done something wrong. It's the DAs job to decide whether or not charges will be filed.
> 
> 
> Powered by SelectionLinks​about this ad


Thank you... This is exactly what I'm trying to explain. 

He also resisted arrest guys.... was he charged for that? Not that I saw. But, you can see it plain as day in the video. Cops don't make the charges... they make the arrest. The rest if up to the courts and our justice system. Not EVERYTHING is charged in every case. And as it was said above... unfortunately, our election process DOES make things sway. Look at Casey Anthony Trial..... if they did NOT go for murder... would they be re-elected? Heck no! Was murder the best way to go? Nope.... it was too hard to prove and they lost. She would be in jail if they just filed it under death due to neglect... or for her covering up her daughters death. That wouldn't have gained votes though. 



Fade2Black said:


> Yes there is. We disagree on what a "terroristic threat is". You are confusing it with "terrorist threat". They are two separate things. They aren't the same. I never said "terrorist" you did.....
> 
> I think there is more then enough information on weather or not Mr. Rosby made any threat to police. He didn't or he would have been charged.....
> 
> I have an opinion on who's right or wrong (the Police). You don't....
> 
> and others (which I am 2 lazy to list).....


There's nothing to argue. I'm going off the definition of the word. If you don't like that... then I don't know, contact Webster. The courts can throw words around in many different ways... so I can't tell you why they use it in certain cases. I'm not the courts. I'm really not arguing about a definition. This wasn't any sort of use of "terrorism" or "terrorist threat" by the definitions of the english words. Not if that's what the courts want to see it as.... then so be it. However, I don't see them using that charge. And this all comes from an "IF", I never said he DID. IF he said something that could be taken as a threat... then the LEOs have 100% power to protect themselves and arrest him. I do not know what he said, so I couldn't tell ya whether this was there or not. The only ones that will know the truth are police, the man, and the courts. It's up to them what they charge and what they do not. Media will play on words, twist things around, and also not get 100% of all the information... so they just make up their own gaps and assumptions. So we will never know 100% truth. 

There's more than meets the eye when there's a crime. I wouldn't want videos to be the one and only form of proof...... for example: if someone that looks like you robs a convenience store.... is it ok for the cops to arrest you, and the courts to decide you are guilty right then and there? Nope. They need further proof. The courts wouldn't even touch that case if all the cops brought was a video. That's also the same with the red light cameras. If you go to court... you can't cross examine the witness, and you can not face your accuser. There ya go... video is not 100% proof. In this video you can not hear anything that was said, you do not know the FULL situation, and you don't know if (or if not) they asked him to do or stop doing something prior. I don't trust media because they have an agenda. So I'm sorry, posting a million articles on the web is not going to prove a case. Which is why I said... we (the public) are too ignorant to the case to make a final judgment. You can believe whatever you want... but understand our justice system and courts need much much more than just a audioless video from one point of view.

I am not, and will not make any judgements or put any assumptions to whether he or the cops were correct. I've stated that a million times. I have not mentioned any opinions... just facts, and facts that are for both sides. You have an opinion... Super. I don't care. I'm not saying you're wrong... I'm not saying you're right. Actually, I don't care what your opinion is on this period, because I'm not trying to prove anyone's guilt or innocence... I'm simply stating the law of the land and that there's MUCH more information needed to complete the case. I said this to (hopefully) bring some realism into this thread. 

So many people on here just need someone to argue with or someone to place blame on immediately. Most of the time with very limited knowledge on the actual situation, and the way systems work (I'm not stating that directly at you... just at the thread and this board in general.... Actually, I don't even keep track of who said what... so I don't even know all of your posts on this thread). If you don't like what I said, or don't agree.... contact the Government. I didn't make the Constitution, nor do I even enforce it. I'm just an American who knows what it says, understands my rights and liberties (and what's not part of them), and understands our laws. I also understand how to keep my butt out of harms way by not being guilty by association, or getting myself in a situation that could possibly be taken badly. Whether I like it or not.... I'm here, and I have to follow it. Simple as that.

Whatever the outcome is on this by the courts (not the public), I hope both parties get what they deserve. Win, lose, or draw. That's all I have to say on this...

Happy 4th Everyone.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

See your post I quoted, part in blue, I'm tired of these over blown rhetorical devices imputing 'hate' towards the police when they are called out on abuse of power.

Seems like that's o.k. with for certain groups, bashing teachers who work in the public school system is A.O.K. (as an example of how gov't employees are criticized) but when anyone points out a problem with police they automatically 'hate' the police.

That's a logical fallacy, imputing negative emotions onto large group of people because they don't agree with your P.O.V.

The fact of the matter is this man did not break any laws.

The fact of the matter is this man was stopped as he *was leaving* the scene.

The fact of the matter is he complied when the police told him to stop, he didn't resist and verbal exchanges are not considered violent.

Because the police made a choice to escalate this situation instead of just warning him to stand back, putting up some crime scene tape or just letting him LEAVE as he intended puts them in the wrong. They are responsible for the death of the dog.

Now if Rosby had gotten in their faces, walked around to the front of the cruisers then I would be on the side of the police. 

It has nothing to do with a 'witch hunt', trying imply those who don't see eye to eye with you on this as being without thought or logic, emotionally driven and there's an awful lot of people who don't agree with you in this thread.



Courtney said:


> What in the sam hill are you talking about?


----------



## Jack's Dad

Gwenhwyfair said:


> See your post I quoted, part in blue, I'm tired of these over blown rhetorical devices imputing 'hate' towards the police when they are called out on abuse of power.
> 
> Seems like that's o.k. with for certain groups, bashing teachers who work in the public school system is A.O.K. (as an example of how gov't employees are criticized) but when anyone points out a problem with police they automatically 'hate' the police.
> 
> That's a logical fallacy, imputing negative emotions onto large group of people because they don't agree with your P.O.V.
> 
> The fact of the matter is this man did not break any laws.
> 
> The fact of the matter is this man was stopped as he *was leaving* the scene.
> 
> The fact of the matter is he complied when the police told him to stop, he didn't resist and verbal exchanges are not considered violent.
> 
> Because the police made a choice to escalate this situation instead of just warning him to stand back, putting up some crime scene tape or just letting him LEAVE as he intended puts them in the wrong. They are responsible for the death of the dog.
> 
> Now if Rosby had gotten in their faces, walked around to the front of the cruisers then I would be on the side of the police.
> 
> It has nothing to do with a 'witch hunt', trying imply those who don't see eye to eye with you on this as being without thought or logic, emotionally driven and there's an awful lot of people who don't agree with you in this thread.


 Lets just skip due process then. You have all the facts, all they need to do is ask you.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

That's right Rosby is guilty because he lives in a bad neighborhood <<_according to you._

Or is it...he's guilty in THIS particular incident because of his priors.

Or is it....he's automatically at fault because he has filed legal complaints against this PD.

He didn't take any violent action, the police did when they shot his dog and you're clearly implying in your previous posts that he's guilty until proven innocent. 

Then you come along and say the below about my comments?

jeez.





Jack's Dad said:


> Lets just skip due process then. You have all the facts, all they need to do is ask you.


----------



## DaniFani

Gwenhwyfair said:


> See your post I quoted, part in blue, I'm tired of these over blown rhetorical devices imputing 'hate' towards the police when they are called out on abuse of power.
> 
> Seems like that's o.k. with for certain groups, bashing teachers who work in the public school system is A.O.K. (as an example of how gov't employees are criticized) but when anyone points out a problem with police they automatically 'hate' the police.
> 
> That's a logical fallacy, imputing negative emotions onto large group of people because they don't agree with your P.O.Vi perceive you doing this quite a bit.......you "think" the police should have been able to "put up" with the crap from this guy....I disagree, and so do the police, and lots if the commenters here...but you have put your negative emotions onto a large group of people (the police and people on here that agree the man was being an idiot and antagonizing the police, disrupting their work and a dangerous situation) because you don't agree with their pov..:crazy:..
> 
> The fact of the matter is this man *did not break any laws.
> *
> The fact of the matter is this man was stopped as he *was leaving* the scene.
> 
> The fact of the matter is he complied when the police told him to stop, he didn't resist and *verbal exchanges are not considered violent*.
> 
> Because the police made a choice to escalate this situation instead of just warning him to stand back, putting up some crime scene tape or just letting him LEAVE as he intended puts them in the wrong. They are responsible for the death of the dog.
> 
> Now if Rosby had gotten in their faces, walked around to the front of the cruisers then I would be on the side of the police.
> 
> It has nothing to do with a 'witch hunt', trying imply those who don't see eye to eye with you on this as being without thought or logic, emotionally driven and there's an awful lot of people who don't agree with you in this thread.


You don't know if the part in bold is true or not, he did resist, and verbal THREATS are absolutely violent.....This is what Tricky was talking about earlier. People assume what they want to. You have no idea if threats were made. You saw what you wanted to see(my reason for using the term 'witch hunt,' you are making assumptions without all the information). You imply that I always side with police and accuse anyone who doesn't as haters. Never did I use the term 'hate' and, to me, you seem to ALWAYS assume the police are at fault...which is just as bad. I believe people are too quick to blame someone, but if I want more facts I'm called a police-sympathizer....or if I say it's not enough to say all police are out of control (which plenty on here say) I'm also called a police sympathizer and accused of not looking objectively. On what planet is wanting all the information something to be criticized for? It's just silly. All of these extremes are bad. 

I haven't said my opinion either way on this. I think BOTH sides were guilty of wrong things and right things. In the end the courts will decide who pays for what. I just think its so ignorant to pass judgement without all the facts, criticize and demean those who want more facts BEFORE they take a stance, and to form an opinion on an ENTIRE group of people based on a few news stories and emotional reactions....that's how racism and discrimination are born....but people don't like to hear that correlation......


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

good grief Dani, I was responding to and *quoting* *Courtney* not you. :crazy:

To be honest, I didn't read your posts in this thread. 

In the other thread you said these sort of threads are 'circle jerking' by the same people which is why you stay out of them  (which is your way of saying other people's opinions don't matter, in a pretty coarse way...) so I decided that it's best not to discuss these sort of issues with you. 

See what you do, you say that pointing out the wrong doings of the police is 'demeaning' others POV. I haven't demeaned anyone. I've said, matter of factly, the police were wrong, they should not have escalated the situation. That is not demeaning. You can't have it both ways, say the you're being the objective one and then accuse others of being 'demeaning' when they aren't. They are saying the police are wrong and this is a case of them overstepping their authority. That's a serious problem too. 

BTW...FWIW I've often found myself agreeing with you on many other issues, so it's nothing personal.





DaniFani said:


> You don't know if the part in bold is true or not, he did resist, and verbal THREATS are absolutely violent.....This is what Tricky was talking about earlier. People assume what they want to. You have no idea if threats were made. You saw what you wanted to see(my reason for using the term 'witch hunt,' you are making assumptions without all the information). You imply that I always side with police and accuse anyone who doesn't as haters. Never did I use the term 'hate' and, to me, you seem to ALWAYS assume the police are at fault...which is just as bad. I believe people are too quick to blame someone, but if I want more facts I'm called a police-sympathizer....or if I say it's not enough to say all police are out of control (which plenty on here say) I'm also called a police sympathizer and accused of not looking objectively. On what planet is wanting all the information something to be criticized for? It's just silly. All of these extremes are bad.
> 
> I haven't said my opinion either way on this. I think BOTH sides were guilty of wrong things and right things. In the end the courts will decide who pays for what. I just think its so ignorant to pass judgement without all the facts, criticize and demean those who want more facts BEFORE they take a stance, and to form an opinion on an ENTIRE group of people based on a few news stories and emotional reactions....that's how racism and discrimination are born....but people don't like to hear that correlation......


----------



## ken k

something to read
Courthouse News Service


----------



## Loneforce

ken k said:


> something to read
> Courthouse News Service


 Wow! very scary this can happen


----------



## boomer11

Gwenhwyfair said:


> The fact of the matter is this man did not break any laws.
> 
> The fact of the matter is this man was stopped as he *was leaving* the scene.
> 
> The fact of the matter is he complied when the police told him to stop, he didn't resist and verbal exchanges are not considered violent.


How do you know he didnt break any laws? he himself admitted that he didnt comply when the police told him to turn his music down. he CLEARLY struggled when the police were trying to pat him down. he could've easily said something in a threatening manner to the police. just because he was never charged doesnt mean he wasnt breaking the law. police pull people over for speeding (breaking the law) and let them go without a ticket. people break laws all the time, sometimes they are just not charged. 

do you know for a fact he was leaving?? it looks to me he had no intentions of leaving. he didnt turn to leave and then the cops called him to come back. it looks like the cops called to him and then he decided oh crap lets put my dog up. two completely different things.

it was CLEAR that he was resisting arrest. can you really sit there and say he 100% complied? if they told him to spread his legs and he said no, thats resisting. and verbal exchanges arent violent but if he made any kind of a threat then it can lead to violence.

no one really knows that was said so when you make so many assumptions just to try to make the cops look bad then yeah you look like a cop hater.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

btw- verbal threats are not violent.

If someone comes up to me and calls me bad names and I punch them in the face I am in the wrong and you know that's the truth.

Rosby was leaving and they called him to stop. That is the moment where I think the police crossed the line. They escalated, not Rosby.


----------



## Courtney

And I was responding to Fade2Black. lol

I don't get bent out of shape if someone disagrees with me. There are some positions I am a strong proponent for which are not discussed on this board. This is not a passionate topic for me.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Did you read the charges posted earlier in this thread?

Walking a large dog was one of them? 

He was leaving, heading to his car and he stated so in later interviews. So how far do you want to extrapolate the fact that he was walking to his car and that he also indicated that is was his intent to leave? How many assumptions to YOU want place into that activity? What he was going to get his can of Coca-Cola and then go back to the scene, or what? What layers of assumptions will you build into the man walking towards his car?

Usually Occams Razor is the rule, he was heading to the car to leave.

Since the police called him back before he got into his car I guess we'll never know though, right? They clearly didn't want him to leave!

BTW- I just had a good friend have a very similar situation with a PO. She knew the county ordinances applying to a dog she had found abandoned. When she quoted the ordinance the officer started making vague statements about state law (there are none for abandoned dogs) and threating to call the judge to find out what law he could use to charge her with.

In blue, just because in your world it's *'us against them'* doesn't mean it's that way for everyone else. That's the sort of attitude that creates these types of tragic incidents too, ironically.




boomer11 said:


> How do you know he didnt break any laws? he himself admitted that he didnt comply when the police told him to turn his music down. he CLEARLY struggled when the police were trying to pat him down. he could've easily said something in a threatening manner to the police. just because he was never charged doesnt mean he wasnt breaking the law. police pull people over for speeding (breaking the law) and let them go without a ticket. people break laws all the time, sometimes they are just not charged.
> 
> do you know for a fact he was leaving?? it looks to me he had no intentions of leaving. he didnt turn to leave and then the cops called him to come back. it looks like the cops called to him and then he decided oh crap lets put my dog up. two completely different things.
> 
> it was CLEAR that he was resisting arrest. can you really sit there and say he 100% complied? if they told him to spread his legs and he said no, thats resisting. and verbal exchanges arent violent but if he made any kind of a threat then it can lead to violence.
> 
> no one really knows that was said so when you make so many assumptions just to try to make the cops look bad then yeah you look like a cop hater.


----------



## DaniFani

Gwenhwyfair said:


> good grief Dani, I was responding to and *quoting* *Courtney* not you. :crazy:
> 
> To be honest, I didn't read your posts in this thread.
> 
> In the other thread you said these sort of threads are 'circle jerking' by the same people which is why you stay out of them  (which is your way of saying other people's opinions don't matter, in a pretty coarse way...) so I decided that it's best not to discuss these sort of issues with you.
> 
> See what you do, you say that pointing out the wrong doings of the police is 'demeaning' others POV. I haven't demeaned anyone. I've said, matter of factly, the police were wrong, they should not have escalated the situation. That is not demeaning. You can't have it both ways, say the you're being the objective one and then accuse others of being 'demeaning' when they aren't. They are saying the police are wrong and this is a case of them overstepping their authority. That's a serious problem too.
> 
> BTW...FWIW I've often found myself agreeing with you on many other issues, so it's nothing personal.


Oh Lordy bee, I said it was demeaning to criticize others for wanting more information. I never said it was wrong to criticize the police....NEVER....nor did I EVER say it was wrong to disagree with police. I think it's wrong to criticize people who are trying to collect all the information and forming an opinion about an entire group of people based on the actions of a few. And I still stand by my circle jerk comment, you continue to read and see what YOU want to....you just did it to my post again....

Fwiw, I never hold someone's opinions against them. And I do agree with you about a lot of things, some of my best friends disagree with me on core stuff....but I enjoy hearing others opinions on things. I just wanted to clarify that I did NOT say it was demeaning to say someone else's OPINION is wrong....my main point has always been, I don't think the police as a whole, are completely screwed up. I think there are bad apples that need to be held accountable, but compared to 20 years ago, I DO believe we are moving forward. Meh, we'll just agree to disagree there. I think LAPD needs a LOT of work, but I also think LA needs a lot of work too....whole 'nother topic lol. 

Have a great fourth, and honestly Gwen, like I said. I agree with you on a LOT of other threads. But what fun is a forum without a few disagreements? 

And I know, I can't help myself lol. I stayed out as long as I could. :blush:


----------



## boomer11

Gwenhwyfair said:


> btw- verbal threats are not violent.
> 
> If someone comes up to me and calls me bad names and I punch them in the face I am in the wrong and you know that's the truth.
> .


verbal threats are non violent but it is still breaking the law as much as punching someone in the face. if you tell a cop you're going to punch him in the face, you will get arrested. if you say you're going to shoot someone, you will be arrested. you dont actually have to put your hands on someone to get arrested. are you 100% positive he didnt make any threats since your post is so matter of fact? 

also calling someone names is not a threat


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Yes and that's why I used the words "others POV".

Meaning other posters on this board. 

...and I think the discussion has been pretty civil, btw. These aren't easy topics sometimes.

You're better then the 'circle jerk' comment ...tho....usually. 

In purple...I agree completely, and happy 4th of July to you too!





DaniFani said:


> Oh Lordy bee, I said it was demeaning to criticize others for wanting more information. I never said it was wrong to criticize the police....NEVER....nor did I EVER say it was wrong to disagree with police. I think it's wrong to criticize people who are trying to collect all the information and forming an opinion about an entire group of people based on the actions of a few. And I still stand by my circle jerk comment, you continue to read and see what YOU want to....you just did it to my post again....
> 
> Fwiw, I never hold someone's opinions against them. And I do agree with you about a lot of things, some of my best friends disagree with me on core stuff....but I enjoy hearing others opinions on things. I just wanted to clarify that I did NOT say it was demeaning to say someone else's OPINION is wrong....my main point has always been, I don't think the police as a whole, are completely screwed up. I think there are bad apples that need to be held accountable, but compared to 20 years ago, I DO believe we are moving forward. Meh, we'll just agree to disagree there. I think LAPD needs a LOT of work, but I also think LA needs a lot of work too....whole 'nother topic lol.
> 
> Have a great fourth, and honestly Gwen, like I said. I agree with you on a LOT of other threads. But what fun is a forum without a few disagreements?
> 
> And I know, I can't help myself lol. I stayed out as long as I could. :blush:


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

No it's not.

It's part of the 1st A, you can call a cop a 'pig' and it's protected speech.

*Generally* there's only two examples of speech that is prohibited, speech which endangers people (like yelling FIRE in a crowded theater when there is *no* fire) and slander.

If I told a cop I was going to punch him in the face but did NOT act on it he could arrest me because he's a cop and he'll come up with charge.

If I said it to someone who is not a PO and then walked away without punching him/her I would not be arrested.

Now just because a cop CAN arrest someone doesn't mean he/she actually has grounds to arrest that person.

I always think of that old saying, "might does not always make right".



boomer11 said:


> verbal threats are non violent but it is still breaking the law as much as punching someone in the face. if you tell a cop you're going to punch him in the face, you will get arrested. if you say you're going to shoot someone, you will be arrested. you dont actually have to put your hands on someone to get arrested. are you 100% positive he didnt make any threats since your post is so matter of fact?
> 
> also calling someone names is not a threat


----------



## Fade2Black

ken k said:


> something to read
> Courthouse News Service


>>>>None of the officers were ever subjected to official discipline or even inquiry, the complaint states.<<<< No big surprise there. Reminds me of that commercial "Membership has it's privileges ".......

Here are 4 of many others.....

Incoming Winston Salem Police Chief shoots woman in the leg trying to kill her dog.....

Incoming Winston-Salem police chief shoots woman in the leg | MyFOX8.com

Army Vet says Police raided wrong apartment killed his dog.....

Army Vet Says Police Raided Wrong Apartment, Killed His Dog | WKBW News 7: News, Sports, Weather | Buffalo, NY | News

Alex Landau responds to Feds decision not to charge Denver cops who brutally beat him...

Alex Landau responds to feds' decision not to charge Denver cops who brutally beat him - Denver - News - The Latest Word

Judge dismisses case against cop who broke into a home with no warrant and killed an unarmed man.....


----------



## ken k

"to serve and protect" and do as we please, this kind of stuff seems to be more and more and everyday thing, if its not innocent dogs, its innocent people


----------



## ohdev

Here's the official press release straight from Hawthorne PDs facebook page.

There was absolutely no need for this man to walk that close to a police line. They were dealing with an armed robber who had discharged their weapon already. It was an uncalled for obtrusion while the officers were doing their job, and his ignorance and stupidity was paid for.

Also; verbal threats are definitely breaking the law. If you threaten someone with immediate or pending harm, you can legally be arrested.


----------



## Dainerra

Gwenhwyfair said:


> btw- verbal threats are not violent.
> 
> If someone comes up to me and calls me bad names and I punch them in the face I am in the wrong and you know that's the truth.
> 
> Rosby was leaving and they called him to stop. That is the moment where I think the police crossed the line. They escalated, not Rosby.


actually, this is 1000% not true. You can be charged with assault just for SAYING that you want to beat someone up. All it takes is for the victim to present a believable case as to why they felt you might follow up those words with actions.

And, if you see someone doing something, then YES you have to tell them "stop so I can talk to you" Otherwise, all I'd have to do to get away with a crime is to just keep walking away when the cops want to ask me questions.


----------



## Dainerra

_At_ Common Law, _an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact._
An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and Tort Law. There is, however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Verbal+assault


----------



## selzer

Ok, so let's say this guy was in the wrong, he didn't turn his music down, and got too close to where the cops were. 

Let's keep in mind that in this country, you are innocent until proved guilty in a court of law. So when the police arrest someone, they should be doing so with the understanding that this person can be found innocent. 

Cops stopped me last night. It was 2AM, and I had pulled into the parking lot of the village green -- kind of just off the road, but enough off the road, so I was definitely in the parking area and not near the road. I was listening to the end of the ball game -- nothing wrong. 

Now if Babs was in the car, and when I rolled my window down to tell the cops what I was doing, she barked at them, or if they wanted to detain me because something stupid happened nearby and I was as good as any suspicious individual, then shouldn't there be some protocol where I could as an innocent person -- not proved guilty of anything, ensure my dog's safety. 

I mean, folks, the answer cannot be, don't pull off the road at 2 AM if you don't want the cops to shoot your dog. Else, dogs would spend their entire lives locked up securely at home, and never be taken anywhere. 

I have very little patience for violent criminals, but I guess I have had enough encounters with police officers to understand that sometimes they will take your information and ask you a few questions, even when you aren't doing anything wrong, and haven't done anything wrong. If a cop kills a drug dealers dog that is protecting its scumball owner and attacking, most cops aren't going to lose any sleep over that. But if a cop kills someone's dog who wasn't involved in any criminal activity, they really ought to feel pretty bad about that, especially if they did not allow the dog's owner to properly contain the dog. 

I want to say too that when cops give orders through those speaker things, I can rarely understand what they are saying at all. Like if they were to say, "Stay in your car!" I might hear "you in the car" and wonder if he wants me to get out, or what. Just because someone does not immediately comply with something, does not mean they did anything wrong, it may actually mean that they haven't a clue what is going on, and did not hear what the guy told him to do. 

So my question is, what is the protocol when you want to question someone about something, and that person has a dog with them? 

Usually, I travel with my dogs in crates in my Explorer. And that is easy, I could just ask the cop to please leave the back open and crack the windows. So they will be ok until someone can come get them. But when I am in the honda, the dog is loose in the back seat. That could be more of an issue because leaving the windows down might cause a situation like this one, and leaving the windows up can cause a dead dog. The answer cannot be to leave the dog home if you are taking the honda. 

This week I have been questioned by the police twice for listening to the end of a ball game, windows up, AC on, so it's not like I am blaring it to the neighborhood. I could have pulled over to text someone, or call someone, or any number of things.


----------



## GatorBytes

selzer said:


> This week I have been questioned by the police twice for listening to the end of a ball game, windows up, AC on, so it's not like I am blaring it to the neighborhood. *I could have pulled over to text someone, or call someone, or any number of things*.


 
Or...you could have been drunk


----------



## DaniFani

Gwenhwyfair said:


> No it's not.
> 
> It's part of the 1st A, you can call a cop a 'pig' and it's protected speech.
> 
> *Generally* there's only two examples of speech that is prohibited, speech which endangers people (like yelling FIRE in a crowded theater when there is *no* fire) and slander.
> 
> If I told a cop I was going to punch him in the face but did NOT act on it he could arrest me because he's a cop and he'll come up with charge.This. This comment right here is why people get defensive, assume things about your stance, and generally get "up in arms" assuming you are "anti-cop" and why some believe you could never look at a situation objectively without trying to first find a way to blame the police.
> 
> If I said it to someone who is not a PO and then walked away without punching him/her I would not be arrested.
> 
> Now just because a cop CAN arrest someone doesn't mean he/she actually has grounds to arrest that person.And NO if they don't have grounds to arrest you, then legally they can NOT arrest you. However, putting someone in handcuffs is NOT arresting them...it's a way of detaining someone for safety purposes(among other reasons) but it is NOT an arrest.
> 
> I always think of that old saying, "might does not always make right".


You keep saying he was leaving the scene. I don't see that(and others here agree) at all when I watch the video, I see a guy who wants to go put his dog up so that he can continue doing whatever it is he was doing....I see NO intention of leaving the scene...none.

All the "facts" you listed, are mostly assumptions, and completely ignore the context of the situation....there is an ACTIVE shooter.....sorry, active shooting trumps everything else....including listening to your music super loud and disrupting those trying to diffuse the active shooting. I just don't understand how you are completely leaving this context out of all your "facts." The person is "known" for disrupting police, of course they would have questions and want to make sure he wasn't going to get in the way of what was going on....we are talking about an ACTIVE SHOOTER.....it doesn't really get much more dangerous than that.

I just think it's very silly to say the dog owner wasn't at fault, at ALL!! Look at his history, his interview, his attitude....and then ultimately, his actions....they all point towards trouble....and that's exactly what resulted. 

Yeah, caution tape, patrol cars, barriers, etc...would have been ideal. But, how long has this situation been happening? What's the timeline? Had they called in support to do that? Do they have enough people to have someone stay on radio/watch, while other's put up tape? It's so easy to look at something from the outside and make snap decisions and judgements, it's harder to hold off on the judgement, gather all view points, all FACTS, and then make a decision...but that's what the justice system is for.


----------



## DaniFani

selzer said:


> Ok, so let's say this guy was in the wrong, he didn't turn his music down, and got too close to where the cops were.
> 
> Let's keep in mind that in this country, you are innocent until proved guilty in a court of law. So when the police arrest someone, they should be doing so with the understanding that this person can be found innocent.
> 
> Cops stopped me last night. It was 2AM, and I had pulled into the parking lot of the village green -- kind of just off the road, but enough off the road, so I was definitely in the parking area and not near the road. I was listening to the end of the ball game -- nothing wrong.
> 
> Now if Babs was in the car, and when I rolled my window down to tell the cops what I was doing, she barked at them, or if they wanted to detain me because something stupid happened nearby and I was as good as any suspicious individual, then shouldn't there be some protocol where I could as an innocent person -- not proved guilty of anything, ensure my dog's safety.
> 
> I mean, folks, the answer cannot be, don't pull off the road at 2 AM if you don't want the cops to shoot your dog. Else, dogs would spend their entire lives locked up securely at home, and never be taken anywhere.
> 
> I have very little patience for violent criminals, but I guess I have had enough encounters with police officers to understand that sometimes they will take your information and ask you a few questions, even when you aren't doing anything wrong, and haven't done anything wrong. If a cop kills a drug dealers dog that is protecting its scumball owner and attacking, most cops aren't going to lose any sleep over that. But if a cop kills someone's dog who wasn't involved in any criminal activity, they really ought to feel pretty bad about that, especially if they did not allow the dog's owner to properly contain the dogAfter watching this video I just assumed the cops thought the dog was properly detained (at first) and by the time it was obvious that the dog wasn't completely detained the cops weren't going to release the owner to do it....for reasons stated earlier, mainly officer safety. People say, "he's innocent until proven guilty and therefore should have been released to secure the dog." Like a PP said, if that was the logic than any criminal in handcuffs *should be released until the court date....And handcuffs do NOT equal guilty, it's detainment until a situation is diffused and considered non-threatening. I have NO idea what words were exchanged at that point. I don't know if the officers felt threatened, if threatening words were exchanged, etc...I'm only pointing out that the handcuffs do NOT mean guilty. The handcuffs could have remained on for safety, and therefore there was no way the owner was going to be given the opportunity to properly detain the dog. Just my thoughts ;-).
> 
> I want to say too that when cops give orders through those speaker things, I can rarely understand what they are saying at all. Like if they were to say, "Stay in your car!" I might hear "you in the car" and wonder if he wants me to get out, or what. Just because someone does not immediately comply with something, does not mean they did anything wrong, it may actually mean that they haven't a clue what is going on, and did not hear what the guy told him to do.
> 
> So my question is, what is the protocol when you want to question someone about something, and that person has a dog with them?
> 
> Usually, I travel with my dogs in crates in my Explorer. And that is easy, I could just ask the cop to please leave the back open and crack the windows. So they will be ok until someone can come get them. But when I am in the honda, the dog is loose in the back seat. That could be more of an issue because leaving the windows down might cause a situation like this one, and leaving the windows up can cause a dead dog. The answer cannot be to leave the dog home if you are taking the honda.
> 
> This week I have been questioned by the police twice for listening to the end of a ball game, windows up, AC on, so it's not like I am blaring it to the neighborhood. I could have pulled over to text someone, or call someone, or any number of things.


lol, maybe they thought there were two teens in your car doing naughty things!  

There is protocol for arresting people with dogs, in our area it's a call to a family member or friend first, then animal control (to hold at the pound until you or someone you know takes the dog). I know this because their are a lot of transients that get into drug trouble around here, and a lot of them have dogs. The dogs usually go to the pound and are picked up by their owners later.

The owner in this video's dog would have probably been picked up by family or animal control pretty quickly (if they operate like my area)....but, the windows were completely down, and obviously the dog was able to get out....leading to the tragic end result.


----------



## selzer

Well, putting this guy in cuffs made everyone a whole lot safer. So safe, that they had to shoot the bloody dog. I kind of think that if you have a right to detain me cuffed, you had better have something to charge me with. I know my mouth would probably be going too, if someone was handcuffing me when I did not do anything that I could be arrested for. I guess the idea of cops handcuffing people that they aren't arresting is totally foreign to me.


----------



## Betty

My county if you are arrested, same thing they call animal control.


----------



## selzer

DaniFani said:


> lol, maybe they thought there were two teens in your car doing naughty things!
> 
> There is protocol for arresting people with dogs, in our area it's a call to a family member or friend first, then animal control (to hold at the pound until you or someone you know takes the dog). I know this because their are a lot of transients that get into drug trouble around here, and a lot of them have dogs. The dogs usually go to the pound and are picked up by their owners later.
> 
> The owner in this video's dog would have probably been picked up by family or animal control pretty quickly (if they operate like my area)....but, the windows were completely down, and obviously the dog was able to get out....leading to the tragic end result.


I have to say, that one time, when I was ready to go across the line with the guy who was telling me where I couldn't train my dog, what shut me up was not knowing what would happen to my dog. I don't want them to end up at a pound, and that is what I thought would happen if I let it escalate. 

He was certainly not de-escalating anything. Ah but what a few years does to eliminate the need to go toe to toe with any authorities, LOL!

On the other hand, if I was living where people of my race were constantly being treated poorly by the police, maybe I would be more of an activist, and maybe I would be acting like this guy did, minus the dog.


----------



## selzer

Betty said:


> My county if you are arrested, same thing they call animal control.


My county doesn't have animal control. Or a government run shelter. There is a privately funded shelter. We have a dog warden. I really don't know what the protocol is in my county. I suppose they might call the dog warden.


----------



## Jack's Dad

Why would any sane person stop at an active crime scene, where there are officers with guns drawn?
Why would you take your dog out of the car at a situation like that?
Why would you leave your windows down to a level that the dog could get out? 
If you are out of the car why would you leave your radio booming when the cops are trying to use a bull horn? 
I don't know if he did anything illegal or not but he was either there to stir the pot with the police or he is dumber than dirt.
He should have been arrested for endangering his dog and the other citizens in the area. Oh, and for being too stupid to protect what looked like a very nice dog.


----------



## OUbrat79

I just read on Fox News that three officers have been pulled from street duty because of death threats. 

I think that shooting the dog was extreme and unnecessary, but in no way does it constitute threatening the lives of these officers. It's a sad day when society puts human life on the same level as a dog. Don't get me wrong, I love my boy Ammo but in no way is his life equal to a human's. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Betty

selzer said:


> My county doesn't have animal control. Or a government run shelter. There is a privately funded shelter. We have a dog warden. I really don't know what the protocol is in my county. I suppose they might call the dog warden.


It would be interesting to find out the protocol. What do they do with stray dogs?


----------



## DaniFani

selzer said:


> I have to say, that one time, when I was ready to go across the line with the guy who was telling me where I couldn't train my dog, what shut me up was not knowing what would happen to my dog. I don't want them to end up at a pound, and that is what I thought would happen if I let it escalate.
> 
> He was certainly not de-escalating anything. Ah but what a few years does to eliminate the need to go toe to toe with any authorities, LOL! Bahahaha
> 
> On the other hand, if I was living where people of my race were constantly being treated poorly by the police, maybe I would be more of an activist, and maybe I would be acting like this guy did, minus the dog.


Yeah, I hear you....LA has SO many things wrong with it....sometimes I think they should kick everyone out, burn it down, and start over from scratch lol. I don't think there is ANYTHING wrong with video taping the police. And most police don't care at all either (at least the ones I know)...and personally I would be suspicious of a police officer that did care. In todays litigious society, video tape can HELP prevent fabrication, embellishment, etc....(that's why so many civilian cars in Russia have dash cams lol).


----------



## boomer11

selzer said:


> I guess the idea of cops handcuffing people that they aren't arresting is totally foreign to me.


well then clearly you dont have a very good understanding of american law AT ALL! but to learn you dont even need to go to law school; just watch the tv show cops. thats what i do


----------



## Jack's Dad

It's not about race. It's about criminals not liking the police who interfere with their criminal activities.

Victimized by the big bad police who don't want them selling drugs, killing, raping, stealing etc...

Los Angeles has some very nice communities and I'm sure many in Hawthorne are upstanding proud citizens but it has a very bad reputation for criminal activity.


----------



## Msmaria

DaniFani said:


> You keep saying he was leaving the scene. I don't see that(and others here agree) at all when I watch the video, I see a guy who wants to go put his dog up so that he can continue doing whatever it is he was doing....I see NO intention of leaving the scene...none.
> 
> All the "facts" you listed, are mostly assumptions, and completely ignore the context of the situation....there is an ACTIVE shooter.....sorry, active shooting trumps everything else....including listening to your music super loud and disrupting those trying to diffuse the active shooting. I just don't understand how you are completely leaving this context out of all your "facts." The person is "known" for disrupting police, of course they would have questions and want to make sure he wasn't going to get in the way of what was going on....we are talking about an ACTIVE SHOOTER.....it doesn't really get much more dangerous than that.
> 
> 
> I just think it's very silly to say the dog owner wasn't at fault, at ALL!! Look at his history, his interview, his attitude....and then ultimately, his actions....they all point towards trouble....and that's exactly what resulted.
> 
> Yeah, caution tape, patrol cars, barriers, etc...would have been ideal. But, how long has this situation been happening? What's the timeline? Had they called in support to do that? Do they have enough people to have someone stay on radio/watch, while other's put up tape? It's so easy to look at something from the outside and make snap decisions and judgements, it's harder to hold off on the judgement, gather all view points, all FACTS, and then make a decision...but that's what the justice system is for.



Well I see a guy about to leave....and others here see that too. You should not tell anyone about making assumptions, when's its so obvious that you are also making assumptions on what the guy was thinking and whether he was leaving or not. You have your opinions and are entitled to it but don't think you have the right to say what this man was thinking or not and no right to say that our opinions are wrong. If you want to talk about attitude include the polices attitude. Otherwise it's clear you are very one sided, as both these police and the man have a history.

As for ACTIVE shooting, where did you get there was active shooting at this time?


----------



## Msmaria

Jack's Dad said:


> It's not about race. It's about criminals not liking the police who interfere with their criminal activities.
> 
> Victimized by the big bad police who don't want them selling drugs, killing, raping, stealing etc...
> 
> Los Angeles has some very nice communities and I'm sure many in Hawthorne are upstanding proud citizens but it has a very bad reputation for criminal activity.


It also has a reputation for bad police taking bribes, stealing drugs etc. It goes both ways.


----------



## DaniFani

Msmaria said:


> Well I see a guy about to leave....and others here see that too. You should not tell anyone about making assumptions, when's its so obvious that you are also making assumptions on what the guy was thinking and whether he was leaving or not. You have your opinions and are entitled to it but don't think you have the right to say what this man was thinking or not and no right to say that our opinions are wrong. If you want to talk about attitude include the polices attitude. Otherwise it's clear you are very one sided, as both these police and the man have a history.
> 
> As for ACTIVE shooting, where did you get there was active shooting at this time?


I was up in arms about the assumptions because previous posters weren't presenting them as opinions, but rather saying things were "factual"....actually USING the word "FACT" when they were assumptions and opinions...not facts....I have NO problem with other's opinions....I've stated that several times....I DO have a problem with someone stating something as "fact" when it is not.

As for the active shooter, read PP's post with the department's info release....it was an active burglary and the burglar had already discharged (that means fired his gun) his weapon and was still "active"(meaning the situation was NOT diffused yet), hence the term "active shooting."


----------



## DaniFani

Msmaria said:


> It also has a reputation for bad police taking bribes, stealing drugs etc. It goes both ways.


Agreed...it's a two way street. Police departments and communities both need a lot of work. I was just kidding about "starting over" I am sure it's reputation is worse than it's reality. However, I do believe several areas need a LOT of work.


----------



## ohdev

Msmaria said:


> As for ACTIVE shooting, where did you get there was active shooting at this time?


The official press release from the department states that there was an armed robber at large who had discharged their weapon. Since the suspect wasn't in custody, it was still an active crime scene. I guess the criminal could technically be referred to as an active shooter since he had already fired his weapon and had two hostages inside their home.

Anywho, I'm still at a loss for why he was there and recording in the first place. He stated himself he 'wanted to make sure no one's civil rights were infringed on'... Who's civil rights? The armed robber?


----------



## DaniFani

OUbrat79 said:


> I just read on Fox News that three officers have been pulled from street duty because of death threats.
> 
> I think that shooting the dog was extreme and unnecessary, but in no way does it constitute threatening the lives of these officers. It's a sad day when society puts human life on the same level as a dog. Don't get me wrong, I love my boy Ammo but in no way is his life equal to a human's.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


Yeah, it's pretty common for people around here (the US) to get more up in arms over a dog dying than a person(I mean in general, not really pertaining to this story at all)....it's pretty sick....imho


----------



## Belmont

This was definitely a tragedy, but let's all remember that not all cops are like this, and I'm sure that cops in the K9 units are equally upset about this.

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## llombardo

OUbrat79 said:


> I just read on Fox News that three officers have been pulled from street duty because of death threats.
> 
> I think that shooting the dog was extreme and unnecessary, but in no way does it constitute threatening the lives of these officers. It's a sad day when society puts human life on the same level as a dog. Don't get me wrong, I love my boy Ammo but in no way is his life equal to a human's.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


While I don't agree that there should be death threats, I do think its sad that the officers were taken off of the streets because of that and not because of something that they did was wrong. There should be a full investigation if a firearm is discharged, no matter what. During that time the officer should be removed from duty, whether its with or without pay. My dog's life IMO is just as equal as mine or my family, because they are my family. I'm not making them human, but they do breath, they do hurt, they do feel pain, pretty close to being a human, the only difference is they can't talk and we(in general) have that advantage.


----------



## Dainerra

for the most parts, how the cops treat you depends a LOT on how you treat them.

if you are courteous and polite "I'm sorry officer I didn't know it would be a problem if I parked here to listen to the end of the game. Is it ok if I roll up the windows and step out of the car so we can talk without the dog barking?" and the cop is most likely going to be courteous back to you. 
Most cops actually aren't looking to arrest someone. They'd rather not have to deal with the paperwork. 

If you enter a situation with a chip on your shoulder, an attitude of just waiting to catch the cops doing something wrong, and most importantly a previous history of run-ins with the cops, then they are going to assume a more defensive attitude from the start. 
That same goes for people who feel that police are beneath them and treat them like servants "My taxes pay your salary, go find a REAL criminal to harass" will probably mean that the cop is going to think you're a jerk and treat you like one.

It's the basic manners you learned in kindergarten - treat people like you want to be treated. Yes, there is always a chance that you will run into a cop who has an attitude, abuses his power and is basically a 
Of course, that guy behind you in traffic who thinks you're driving too slow could get out of his car at the next traffic light and punch you in the face. It happens and there really is no way to prepare for those kind of people.


----------



## DaniFani

Hawthorne Police Launch 2 Investigations Into Fatal Shooting Of Rottweiler CBS Los Angeles

They have launched an internal investigation......they always do, a quick google search reveals that. No need to ASSUME they aren't doing a full investigation. The officers are usually given time off if its a human shooting, not sure about animal. However, these officers are receiving death threats to their wives and children as well....also a local shop owner with a similar name as a lt on the case received dozens of threatening phone calls. Unfortunately most people act on emotions and half truths and don't bother to gather facts. And NO ONE deserves to have their lives or their families lives threatened. Sickening.


----------



## Swifty

selzer said:


> Well, putting this guy in cuffs made everyone a whole lot safer. So safe, that they had to shoot the bloody dog. I kind of think that if you have a right to detain me cuffed, you had better have something to charge me with. I know my mouth would probably be going too, if someone was handcuffing me when I did not do anything that I could be arrested for. I guess the idea of cops handcuffing people that they aren't arresting is totally foreign to me.


It was supposed to make everything safer. IMO, they were probably going to handcuff him, finish what they were doing and then let him go. Or they would arrest him and charge him with obstruction and that would be the end of it. The entire point seemed to be to make him to sit down and shut up so he would stop disturbing the scene. He wasn't an innocent bystander; the innocent bystanders were standing across the street. He was provoking a situation he should never have been involved in.

His dog entering the picture escalated the situation. That fact is *on him* because he brought his dog along, he had the windows rolled down to let his dog jump out, and his dog wasn't belted in. All of those things are his fault and all of those things *directly contributed* to his dog's death. The police reacted as they should have reacted with an unknown and possibly dangerous dog nearby. I cannot blame the police for handcuffing this guy given what he was doing, and I cannot blame the police for shooting a dog that can hurt them. The reaction of the police is entirely predictable given the situation. Anyone with sense can forsee every reaction (guy antagonizes the police, they'll arrest him. Unknown and possibly dangerous dog snaps at police, they'll shoot it).


----------



## Swifty

Dainerra said:


> for the most parts, how the cops treat you depends a LOT on how you treat them.
> 
> if you are courteous and polite "I'm sorry officer I didn't know it would be a problem if I parked here to listen to the end of the game. Is it ok if I roll up the windows and step out of the car so we can talk without the dog barking?" and the cop is most likely going to be courteous back to you.
> Most cops actually aren't looking to arrest someone. They'd rather not have to deal with the paperwork.
> 
> If you enter a situation with a chip on your shoulder, an attitude of just waiting to catch the cops doing something wrong, and most importantly a previous history of run-ins with the cops, then they are going to assume a more defensive attitude from the start.
> That same goes for people who feel that police are beneath them and treat them like servants "My taxes pay your salary, go find a REAL criminal to harass" will probably mean that the cop is going to think you're a jerk and treat you like one.
> 
> It's the basic manners you learned in kindergarten - treat people like you want to be treated. Yes, there is always a chance that you will run into a cop who has an attitude, abuses his power and is basically a
> Of course, that guy behind you in traffic who thinks you're driving too slow could get out of his car at the next traffic light and punch you in the face. It happens and there really is no way to prepare for those kind of people.


Absolutely this. Plus the guy has a gun: not antagonizing them should be a given.

Also: when dogs are involved there is *always* the chance of an escalating situation. I saw a youtube video of a woman pulled over for a traffic stop and the officer was going to let her off with a warning (as he was saying in the video), then she for some reason rolled down the window to the backseat where her dog was. The dog snapped at the officer who jumped back and drew his gun. He didn't shoot the dog, but he dragged the woman from her car and arrested her for endangering his life.

Unknown dogs are serious potential threats. The delivery people around here won't get out of their trucks if my golden retriever is outside without me right there to control her despite the fact that her tail is wagging so violently it wags her butt. You just don't take chances when you encounter so many strange dogs.


----------



## DaniFani

llombardo said:


> While I don't agree that there should be death threats, I do think its sad that the officers were taken off of the streets because of that and not because of something that they did was wrong. There should be a full investigation if a firearm is discharged, no matter what. During that time the officer should be removed from duty, whether its with or without pay.
> 
> I agree the officer that discharged the firearm should be put on paid leave or light duty(admin) until the investigation is completed, and they usually are....however, ONE officer discharged his weapon, not THREE. And all THREE had to put on paid leave because of the death threats to them AND their families.
> 
> My dog's life IMO is just as equal as mine or my family
> 
> That's great, and my dog is very important to me, but law does not agree that a dog's life is equal to you, your spouses, or your childrens lives. You or your family being shot and killed is not (in the eyes of the law) the same as your dog being killed. Human safety first, then dogs.,
> 
> because they are my family. I'm not making them human, but they do breath, they do hurt, they do feel pain, pretty close to being a human
> 
> I guess I disagree here too....they aren't "close" to being human. They are a different species completely. Companion? Yes, of course. Human? No. Meh, I guess agree to disagree there....,
> 
> the only difference is they can't talk and we(in general) have that advantage.There are countless more differences than the fact that they can't talk, you are humanizing dogs...they are dogs.....and some would say they have their own language and ability to "talk", just on a very primitive, survival-istic, level....a dog being equal to human (or close to equal) is a whole other debate though....


Response in blue.


----------



## ShatteringGlass

Amazed that people are completely fine with the police just walking up and handcuffing you for recording them on a cell phone. WOW. And then shooting your dog right in front of you, and saying it's partially your fault? 

I work with dogs, have for over 10 years. I work at a job were I walk into yards with dogs. I've been charged by barking dogs with hackles up, running at full speed and who circle around me. I'm 5'3" 110lbs woman, and somehow I manage to not **** my pants and completely panic, and this dog was acting nothing like what I just described. If I was there I would of walked over and grabbed this dog's leash so these little daisy's wouldn't of been so scared and starting firing their weapons in a neighborhood with people all around.


----------



## Courtney

I agree. When our loved ones professions put us in potential danger it is very scary. I appreciated the protection the Army gave us when my husband was in a Special Operations unit. These guys wouldn't do it otherwise. In my husbands current profession safe guards are put in place.

This is quoted from the article you posted and the reason I used the term witch hunt and mentioned throwing officers names out there.

_Investigators said while names of officers involved are being floated around on the Internet, much of that information is incorrect, including the person labeled as the shooter._




DaniFani said:


> Hawthorne Police Launch 2 Investigations Into Fatal Shooting Of Rottweiler CBS Los Angeles
> 
> They have launched an internal investigation......they always do, a quick google search reveals that. No need to ASSUME they aren't doing a full investigation. The officers are usually given time off if its a human shooting, not sure about animal. However, these officers are receiving death threats to their wives and children as well....also a local shop owner with a similar name as a lt on the case received dozens of threatening phone calls. Unfortunately most people act on emotions and half truths and don't bother to gather facts. And NO ONE deserves to have their lives or their families lives threatened. Sickening.


----------



## Swifty

ShatteringGlass said:


> Amazed that people are completely fine with the police just walking up and handcuffing you for recording them on a cell phone. WOW. And then shooting your dog right in front of you, and saying it's partially your fault?


What are you talking about? There were other people recording, too, and they weren't bothered. The problem wasn't with being recorded.



ShatteringGlass said:


> If I was there I would of walked over and grabbed this dog's leash so these little daisy's wouldn't of been so scared and starting firing their weapons in a neighborhood with people all around.


One of the officers did try to grab the dog's leash. The dog snapped at her. That's why it was shot  The police were there to end a hostage crisis, not to calm and coax this idiot's dog into behaving himself. Dog doesn't behave? It gets shot. Everyone should assume that will happen and not bring their unleashed and uncontrolled dog around police.


----------



## ShatteringGlass

Swifty said:


> What are you talking about? There were other people recording, too, and they weren't bothered. The problem wasn't with being recorded.
> 
> 
> 
> One of the officers did try to grab the dog's leash. The dog snapped at her. That's why it was shot  The police were there to end a hostage crisis, not to calm and coax this idiot's dog into behaving himself. Dog doesn't behave? It gets shot. Everyone should assume that will happen and not bring their unleashed and uncontrolled dog around police.


Unleashed? It was on a leash. I hope you never drop your dogs leash and it chases after a squirrel that run towards a cop, the cop will pee his pants and shoot your dog because he thought the dog was going to kill him.

The cops obviously over reacted, but I guess you are completely fine with officers discharging their weapon over a dog who could of easily of been restrained, come on this dog was not some wild aggressive beast, the dog actually backed off the first time it approached and the cops turned around. The dog wanders about, then the cops advance on the dog with their guns in it's face, and the dog feels threatened and reacts, it didn't full out attack. If they just stopped and didn't pee their pants about a dog near them, this situation could of turned out a lot better. But no, they get scared and have a hair trigger. I don't know about you, but I am not comfortable with cops who just fire their gun in the street with a crowd around over something that could of been handled a lot easier


----------



## Swifty

ShatteringGlass said:


> Unleashed? It was on a leash. I hope you never drop your dogs leash and it chases after a squirrel that run towards a cop, the cop will pee his pants and shoot your dog because he thought the dog was going to kill him.


I hope this too. I would be devastated to lose my dog over a misunderstanding like this 

This dog was on a leash but the leash was dragging. That is effectively the same as unleashed, I think.



ShatteringGlass said:


> The cops obviously over reacted, but I guess you are completely fine with officers discharging their weapon over a dog who could of easily of been restrained[...]


I look at human officers kind of like I look at police dogs. If I behave aggressively toward a police dog it could very well kill me (or at least seriously injure me). I don't blame the dog for that because the police dog is trained to respond to threats a certain way. So around police dogs I am polite, respectful, and *I keep my freaking distance* until the dog trusts me enough to not rip my throat out. They are not the same as family dogs that you can poke and play with. Human officers are trained to look for threats and respond with force, even deadly force. Around human officers I am polite, respectful, and always keep in mind that they can misinterpret my actions and shoot me. Sure, they might be wrong and get fired or put in jail... but I'll be dead so it's not much comfort.

I'm not 'fine with it' so much as I understand that my actions have consequences and the police (and police dogs) respond to aggression with sometimes deadly force.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

You keep going on about people feeling demeaned, sometimes when people are on the wrong side of the argument they feel that way.

I learned a lesson many years ago when teaching new hires for Sat Coms Ops, people perceive information differently.

In the same class I had people who thought I did an excellent job teaching and others who thought I 'talked down to them'.

The difference was not me, I was giving the same lesson to a large group of people. It was the audience that differed. Some people get their feelings hurt if they don't have the right answer, some didn't want to be educated because it made them feel inferior, or they felt the course material was too basic. Of course I had to tailor the material for a large and somewhat diverse group of people so I had no choice. 

At first I was hurt by this, because I really wanted to engage everyone in the class positively. Ultimately I learned that I cannot control how people will react to being 'told' something vs being 'taught' something, it was up to them how they were going to internalize the class. So I cannot control how people react emotionally when I disagree with them and utilize reasonable assumptions and logic to explain my position. (Live long and Prosper  )

So in this thread I have clearly stated over and over why I feel the police bear the lion's share of responsibility for the death of the rottie.

As to Rosby's leaving, I'm an Occam's Razor kind of gal. You can extrapolate several different scenarios of why he was heading to his car and if he was going to leave or not but that would contradict what we saw in the video and would require injecting other assumed scenarios none of which could be verified.

Therefore, based on what Mr. Rosby himself said and the corroboration of actions he took as seen on the video my argument is far stronger.

He was leaving.

Things we know: One - no crime scene tape, Two - stayed behind the patrol cars, Three - the charges against him are silly at worst and vague at best.

So in this particular incident it is reasonable to come to the conclusion that the police were in the wrong.

Additonally NOT directed at you Dani, this is in general - Some here have said that he should sue the police (more). While that is probably his only recourse it's really a stupid way to run a society. I really didn't like it when Renee suggested that as a 'solution' to bad policing. Two costs arise from these types of situations 1) if the plaintiff wins it's we the tax payers who pay 2) it creates a really bad vibe between the police and community of distrust.

I think, in general, we are whittling away at the buffer zones that make our country the greatest country in the world through short sightedness and greed. Police should *not* be amongst the lowest paid gov't employees. They should be well trained and well compensated because when they are they will have *fewer* problems like this incident. We are doing this in other areas too, everyone wants to have well organized, safe and efficient services but no one wants to pay for it. So while you keep pointing out that things are much better then the 60s - 70s those improvements came about because of public involvement, training, more awareness not only in the police work but also in society in general. It's all interconnected. We're chipping away at these safety margins thinking that some how these gains were a given, not something worked for and paid for by previous generations. In other words, we take way too much for granted. 







DaniFani said:


> You keep saying he was leaving the scene. I don't see that(and others here agree) at all when I watch the video, I see a guy who wants to go put his dog up so that he can continue doing whatever it is he was doing....I see NO intention of leaving the scene...none.
> 
> All the "facts" you listed, are mostly assumptions, and completely ignore the context of the situation....there is an ACTIVE shooter.....sorry, active shooting trumps everything else....including listening to your music super loud and disrupting those trying to diffuse the active shooting. I just don't understand how you are completely leaving this context out of all your "facts." The person is "known" for disrupting police, of course they would have questions and want to make sure he wasn't going to get in the way of what was going on....we are talking about an ACTIVE SHOOTER.....it doesn't really get much more dangerous than that.
> 
> I just think it's very silly to say the dog owner wasn't at fault, at ALL!! Look at his history, his interview, his attitude....and then ultimately, his actions....they all point towards trouble....and that's exactly what resulted.
> 
> Yeah, caution tape, patrol cars, barriers, etc...would have been ideal. But, how long has this situation been happening? What's the timeline? Had they called in support to do that? Do they have enough people to have someone stay on radio/watch, while other's put up tape? It's so easy to look at something from the outside and make snap decisions and judgements, it's harder to hold off on the judgement, gather all view points, all FACTS, and then make a decision...but that's what the justice system is for.


----------



## Swifty

Gwenhwyfair said:


> I think, in general, we are whittling away at the buffer zones that make our country the greatest country in the world through short sightedness and greed. Police should *not* be amongst the lowest paid gov't employees. They should be well trained and well compensated because when they are they will have *fewer* problems like this incident. We are doing this in other areas too, everyone wants to have well organized, safe and efficient services but no one wants to pay for it. So while you keep pointing out that things are much better then the 60s - 70s those improvements came about because of public involvement, training, more awareness not only in the police work but also in society in general. It's all interconnected. We're chipping away at these safety margins thinking that some how these gains were a given, not something worked for and paid for by previous generations. In other words, we take way too much for granted.


I don't think this is true.

The police responded in exactly the way we expect them to behave; in fact, the way we *pay them* to behave. They faced a threat, they didn't back down, and when the threat couldn't be controlled it was shot.

It's possible that more training can help them control dogs more effectively but to be honest I think that's a low priority. The dog should never have been there to begin with and training the police won't help with irresponsible owners. The person at fault for the situation was the owner since the police did, generally, what they were supposed to do.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

I don't agree with this, I just think it's easier to discuss animal welfare because animals usually the most innocent of parties involved) then human welfare (especially as this board we have to stick to dog related topics).

There are plenty of conversations going on regarding human welfare in other news/forums/outlets. Sometimes we talk about human welfare and don't even realize that it's truly what the topic is about (*cough* ACA *cough cough* you didn't 'hear' that....  )



DaniFani said:


> Yeah, it's pretty common for people around here (the US) to get more up in arms over a dog dying than a person(I mean in general, not really pertaining to this story at all)....it's pretty sick....imho


----------



## Fade2Black

I expected this so I am not surprised. The officer that killed Max was part of a Brutality lawsuit that paid out 1 million $$. And of course they still kept their job.....

Los Angeles, CA (PRWEB) February 1, 2009 The Hawthorne Police Department paid One Million Dollars to a Settle Lawsuit in which it was alleged a man was kicked in the face while handcuffed and then falsely prosecuted along with his wife to cover up the brutality. Evidence the plaintiffs were prepared to present at trial included a photograph of an officer appearing to kick the handcuffed plaintiff in the face and a surveillance video allegedly depicting officers high-fiving each other as the injured plaintiff suffered from a broken jaw.
After approval by the City Council, Hawthorne paid $1,000,000, (one million dollars) to settle Goodrow v. Hawthorne Police Department, Case No. CV- 07-5253 (VBV), on the eve of trial in United States District Court, Central District of California, the Honorable Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank presiding. 
Officers Ian Elliot, Thomas Heffner, Melanie Newenham, Renee Descant, Jeffrey Salmon, David Gregor and Jailer Darnell Wallace were among defendants named in the lawsuit. The plaintiffs Anthony Goodrow and Karla Henriquez Goodrow sued the Hawthorne Police Officers for alleged deprivation of their civil rights resulting from excessive force, denial of medical treatment and malicious prosecution, stemming from an incident that occurred at a party on July 21, 2006. 
On July 21, 2006, the Hawthorne Police Department received a loud noise complaint. Plaintiffs contend that in shutting down the party, officers beat plaintiff Anthony Goodrow, handcuffed him and then continued to beat him. It was further alleged that while Mr. Goodrow was handcuffed and face down on the cement, an Officer kicked Mr. Goodrow in the face breaking his jaw. Mr. Goodrow alleged he was arrested and taken to the jail instead of the hospital causing a delay in medical treatment. The wife of Mr. Goodrow, Karla Henriquez Goodrow, alleged she witnessed part of the beating and screamed for officers to stop. She alleged they arrested her and falsely charged her with public intoxication.
The Goodrows were then prosecuted in criminal court. Ultimately the criminal charges against Mr. Goodrow were dismissed. The case against Mrs. Goodrow proceeded to trial and she was acquitted. After the acquittal the Goodrows filed a federal lawsuit against the officers for deprivation of civil rights, excessive force, malicious prosecution and denial of medical treatment. 
Attorney's Glen Jonas and Christopher Driscoll (from the law firm of Jonas & Driscoll L.L.P.) litigated the civil action to its successful conclusion. Todd Melnik was the attorney who successfully defended the plaintiffs in the original criminal matters, enabling the firm of Jonas & Driscoll to litigate the civil rights action against the defendant police officers. 
In April 2008, the law firm of Jonas & Driscoll L.L.P. attained a $4.5 million dollar jury verdict against Bell Gardens Police Officers. In July 2009, Jonas & Driscoll L.L.P. will bring to trial L.A. County Sheriff's Deputies accused of viciously beating Deon Dirks.
If you need further information, contact Glen Jonas at 213-683-2033.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Dainerra a member whose husband was (is?) a Police officer noted some salaries for local police to be around $17K per year.

That's abysmally low. If you think that will get you the cream of the crop as a *rule* then you are wrong.

Furthermore a low paid cop trying to struggle to get by on that meager salary will be more susceptible to corrupting influences. Human nature 101. That is the macro point I'm trying to make and btw- sticking up for police at the same time!!

The owner exercise poor judgement but technically did not break any laws as can be seen by the charges filed, like 'walking a large dog'. If they have to come up with charges like that to justify shooting the dog then you know they are grasping at straws.

See the difference here is I can say what Rosby did wasn't the wisest thing, I would not have acted that way but at the end of the day the question is, did he *really* break any laws? 

That's the ultimate litmus test, that's how we maintain a modicum of justice in this country for the average Joe/Jane. You can't have LE going in to court and making up new laws as they go to suit their agenda that's not justice. 

So while Rosby was not being as cautious as I would have been I still have to maintain that he should not be held at fault. If he was following 'the rules' he's technically not in the wrong, period.




Swifty said:


> I don't think this is true.
> 
> The police responded in exactly the way we expect them to behave; in fact, the way we *pay them* to behave. They faced a threat, they didn't back down, and when the threat couldn't be controlled it was shot.
> 
> It's possible that more training can help them control dogs more effectively but to be honest I think that's a low priority. The dog should never have been there to begin with and training the police won't help with irresponsible owners. The person at fault for the situation was the owner since the police did, generally, what they were supposed to do.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Sheesh.

See I wonder if it's the unions that protect these guys?

Keep in mind every time this PO messes up like this it costs the entire community.

(it should be noted that while many public sector unions are being legislated out of existence police unions (which are public sector as well) often are being spared. Think about that for a second........)




Fade2Black said:


> I expected this so I am not surprised. The officer that killed Max was part of a Brutality lawsuit that paid out 1 million $$. And of course they still kept their job.....
> 
> Los Angeles, CA (PRWEB) February 1, 2009 The Hawthorne Police Department paid One Million Dollars to a Settle Lawsuit in which it was alleged a man was kicked in the face while handcuffed and then falsely prosecuted along with his wife to cover up the brutality. Evidence the plaintiffs were prepared to present at trial included a photograph of an officer appearing to kick the handcuffed plaintiff in the face and a surveillance video allegedly depicting officers high-fiving each other as the injured plaintiff suffered from a broken jaw.
> After approval by the City Council, Hawthorne paid $1,000,000, (one million dollars) to settle Goodrow v. Hawthorne Police Department, Case No. CV- 07-5253 (VBV), on the eve of trial in United States District Court, Central District of California, the Honorable Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank presiding.
> Officers Ian Elliot, Thomas Heffner, Melanie Newenham, Renee Descant, Jeffrey Salmon, David Gregor and Jailer Darnell Wallace were among defendants named in the lawsuit. The plaintiffs Anthony Goodrow and Karla Henriquez Goodrow sued the Hawthorne Police Officers for alleged deprivation of their civil rights resulting from excessive force, denial of medical treatment and malicious prosecution, stemming from an incident that occurred at a party on July 21, 2006.
> On July 21, 2006, the Hawthorne Police Department received a loud noise complaint. Plaintiffs contend that in shutting down the party, officers beat plaintiff Anthony Goodrow, handcuffed him and then continued to beat him. It was further alleged that while Mr. Goodrow was handcuffed and face down on the cement, an Officer kicked Mr. Goodrow in the face breaking his jaw. Mr. Goodrow alleged he was arrested and taken to the jail instead of the hospital causing a delay in medical treatment. The wife of Mr. Goodrow, Karla Henriquez Goodrow, alleged she witnessed part of the beating and screamed for officers to stop. She alleged they arrested her and falsely charged her with public intoxication.
> The Goodrows were then prosecuted in criminal court. Ultimately the criminal charges against Mr. Goodrow were dismissed. The case against Mrs. Goodrow proceeded to trial and she was acquitted. After the acquittal the Goodrows filed a federal lawsuit against the officers for deprivation of civil rights, excessive force, malicious prosecution and denial of medical treatment.
> Attorney's Glen Jonas and Christopher Driscoll (from the law firm of Jonas & Driscoll L.L.P.) litigated the civil action to its successful conclusion. Todd Melnik was the attorney who successfully defended the plaintiffs in the original criminal matters, enabling the firm of Jonas & Driscoll to litigate the civil rights action against the defendant police officers.
> In April 2008, the law firm of Jonas & Driscoll L.L.P. attained a $4.5 million dollar jury verdict against Bell Gardens Police Officers. In July 2009, Jonas & Driscoll L.L.P. will bring to trial L.A. County Sheriff's Deputies accused of viciously beating Deon Dirks.
> If you need further information, contact Glen Jonas at 213-683-2033.


----------



## Swifty

Gwenhwyfair said:


> The owner exercise poor judgement but technically did not break any laws as can be seen by the charges filed, like 'walking a large dog'. If they have to come up with charges like that to justify shooting the dog then you know they are grasping at straws.


They don't have to justify shooting the dog by arresting or charging the owner. The dog being aggressive at an officer justifies shooting the dog by itself. The owner should have been detained or arrested because he was disturbing an _active_ crime scene and the charge was exactly that, iirc. "Obstruction of justice". He was attracting the attention of officers, distracting and disturbing their attempt at containing a crime.



ShatteringGlass said:


> See the difference here is I can say what Rosby did wasn't the wisest thing, I would not have acted that way but at the end of the day the question is, did he *really* break any laws?


I don't think that matters in any way, shape, or form. He was acting unusually (he wasn't filming where everyone else was standing), he was acting aggressively (shouting and walking toward police) and he had a weapon with him (big dogs count as a weapon, iirc). *He absolutely should have been detained*. The police absolutely were in the right by handcuffing him. Absolutely, completely and totally in the right. They then can question him and release him if it turns out that he's not drunk or in league with the hostage takers or whatever. No charges filed. That is how it is _supposed_ to work.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

They have to come up with charges to justify their actions when it goes to court. At this point they are playing the defense game. 

(btw - That 'obstruction of justice' was due to loud music coming from his car. Not that he was physically interfering).

I disagree, the problem here is the police were escalating the situation when they did *not* have to. They are in the wrong.


(btw based on the number of patrol cars looks like a lot of officers on the scene. Why the heck didn't one of the put up some crime scene tape like is often done? Apparently Rosby isn't the ONLY one who has had problems with this PD, see fade2black's post above)

in edit, also somehow you misquoted me and shatteringGlass....




Swifty said:


> They don't have to justify shooting the dog by arresting or charging the owner. The dog being aggressive at an officer justifies shooting the dog by itself. The owner should have been arrested because he was disturbing an _active_ crime scene and the charge was exactly that, iirc. "Obstruction of justice".
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that matters in any way, shape, or form. He was acting unusually (he wasn't filming where everyone else was standing), he was acting aggressively (shouting and walking toward police) and he had a weapon with him (big dogs count as a weapon, iirc). *He absolutely should have been detained*. The police absolutely were in the right by handcuffing him. Absolutely, completely and totally in the right. They then can question him and release him if it turns out that he's not drunk or in league with the hostage takers or whatever. No charges filed. That is how it is _supposed_ to work.


----------



## Blanketback

I think some people are forgetting that we're talking about the LAPD. Sure, if _I _get pulled over in_ my_ city, then it's just a routine traffic stop. My city is small, without a terrible amount of crime. Take any member of LAPD and put them in my jurisdiction for a week and they'll feel like they're on vacation!

When a friend of mine was pulled over by LAPD (a Canadian, on vacation) he was screamed at through the bullhorn to exit his vehicle and put his hands on the hood. He was approached by 2 cops, guns drawn. Yeah, you want to talk about peeing your pants...let's just say this isn't how it's done in most parts. By when you're LAPD you have a wee bit more on your plate. It's probably prudent to assume anyone will gun you down at any moment. It's an incredibly crime ridden city and has been for decades, with the gang warfare and whatnot. We're very fortunate if we're ignorant of this chaos.


----------



## Swifty

Gwenhwyfair said:


> They have to come up with charges to justify their actions when it goes to court. At this point they are playing the defense game.


You don't charge a dog with a crime. Their action of killing the dog is justified by the dog being aggressive, not because of any crime done. If you're out jogging and go by an officer and the leash breaks, the officer can shoot your dog (if he was being threatening) and not charge you with a crime (because you didn't do anything wrong, the leash breaking is an accident). An accident, a tragedy, and not a crime.



Gwenhwyfair said:


> (btw - That 'obstruction of justice' was due to loud music coming from his car. Not that he was physically interfering).


He didn't physically interfere, but his actions were disturbing and distracting officers at an active crime scene. "Obstruction of justice" is an *entirely correct* charge to file against him. This isn't 'grasping at straws', it's obvious from the video that it was exactly what he was doing.



Gwenhwyfair said:


> I disagree, the problem here is the police were escalating the situation when they did *not* have to. They are in the wrong.


The police didn't escalate the problem, they acted correctly in order to contain the problem by handcuffing the owner. The escalation was from the dog escaping the car, which is completely the fault of the owner.



Gwenhwyfair said:


> (btw based on the number of patrol cars looks like a lot of officers on the scene. Why the heck didn't one of the put up some crime scene tape like is often done? Apparently Rosby isn't the ONLY one who has had problems with this PD, see fade2black's post above)


I don't know enough about police procedure to answer this question, but I think it's telling that *every other person* had enough sense to keep their distance. No one else had any problems with the police. I have *zero problems* with police acting against someone advancing toward them while yelling something that was probably hostile. The police acted as I would expect them to act given the situation. I saw tragedy, I saw misery, but I saw no injustice done by police in any form.


----------



## boomer11

Gwenhwyfair said:


> They have to come up with charges to justify their actions when it goes to court. At this point they are playing the defense game.
> 
> (btw - That 'obstruction of justice' was due to loud music coming from his car. Not that he was physically interfering).
> 
> I disagree, the problem here is the police were escalating the situation when they did *not* have to. They are in the wrong.
> 
> 
> (btw based on the number of patrol cars looks like a lot of officers on the scene. Why the heck didn't one of the put up some crime scene tape like is often done?


do you not agree that he broke the law when the cops told him to turn down his music and he did not comply? (he admitted to this) he clearly broke the law (obstruction). he didnt have to physically interfere for it to be obstruction. and the police didnt have to escalate the situation but they also did not start it. he was the one provoking them and breaking the law by not complying so they didnt have to escalate but they HAD THE RIGHT TO escalate and handcuff the guy if they so choose. 

also police tape goes up after the threat is dealt with. if the threat is still active why would you divert resources to put up tape? also you dont know how big the crime scene is until the threat is dealt with. what if the shooter runs out of his house and down the block? what if he gets shot inside the house and the crime scene is only that house? c'mon use some common sense


----------



## Dainerra

as I've said before, it's not the cops' job to restrain anyone's dog. They were there to end a hostage situation. And if you think that blaring a radio during the middle of an investigation isn't obstruction then you are sadly mistaken. 
He could have turned down the radio. He could have left his dog sitting restrained in the car while he got out to videotape. He could have done a ton of things differently that would have saved his dog's life and still allowed him to exercise his rights to videotape.
There were lots of people who were videotaping and none of them were arrested. There were crowds of bystanders and they weren't getting arrested. 
He went out of his way to antagonize the cops. I can pretty much guarantee that the police dept doesn't have his photo hanging in the locker room with a note that says "harass this man".


----------



## Blanketback

Dainerra said:


> I can pretty much guarantee that the police dept doesn't have his photo hanging in the locker room with a note that says "harass this man".


Although, if you're suing them, it might be wise to assume they do


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Two questions arise:

1) Did they *really* need to stop Rosby from leaving, escalate the situation, hand cuff him and then come up with 'charges' like 'walking a large dog'. Just because you choose to ignore those important points doesn't mean they don't exist.

2) Did they *really* need to shoot the dog? That's another question that may come up and I agree it's more of a grey area. I think they could have handled it differently but since they were already on the path of ESCALATING the situation that's what happens.

Both of these questions will probably be settled in court just as with the case posted by Fade2Black and cost the taxpayers more money not to mention the dog is gone. 

It all could have been avoided. As I've mentioned I've seen police do excellent work DE-escalating a situation, these officers did not. Clearly there is bad blood there and Rosby has already stated the officer recognized him and he recognized the officer, THAT'S when they decided to stop him. 

Just because YOU think they were justified doesn't mean it will be found that way in court....btw...again..at tax payers expense.

In Blue we agree and that is a VERY important point. He didn't physically interfere which greatly weakens your argument.

Remember the actual crime scene was further down the street as well, so it's not like Rosby was hovering around within a few feet of the actual crime scene either.

We are just going to have to agree that we disagree on this because I'm not going to change my mind unless actual evidence is presented that Rosby was really in the wrong. 'Walking a large dog' is a real charge? C'mon, if that's not a red flag what is?

Apparently this particular PD has a habit of trumping up charges too.





Swifty said:


> You don't charge a dog with a crime. Their action of killing the dog is justified by the dog being aggressive, not because of any crime done. If you're out jogging and go by an officer and the leash breaks, the officer can shoot your dog (if he was being threatening) and not charge you with a crime (because you didn't do anything wrong, the leash breaking is an accident). An accident, a tragedy, and not a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> *He didn't physically interfere*, but his actions were disturbing and distracting officers at an active crime scene. "Obstruction of justice" is an *entirely correct* charge to file against him. This isn't 'grasping at straws', it's obvious from the video that it was exactly what he was doing.
> 
> 
> 
> The police didn't escalate the problem, they acted correctly in order to contain the problem by handcuffing the owner. The escalation was from the dog escaping the car, which is completely the fault of the owner.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know enough about police procedure to answer this question, but I think it's telling that *every other person* had enough sense to keep their distance. No one else had any problems with the police. I have *zero problems* with police acting against someone advancing toward them while yelling something that was probably hostile. The police acted as I would expect them to act given the situation. I saw tragedy, I saw misery, but I saw no injustice done by police in any form.


----------



## DaniFani

Gwenhwyfair said:


> You keep going on about people feeling demeaned, sometimes when people are on the wrong side of the argument they feel that way.
> 
> I learned a lesson many years ago when teaching new hires for Sat Coms Ops, people perceive information differently.
> 
> In the same class I had people who thought I did an excellent job teaching and others who thought I 'talked down to them'.
> 
> The difference was not me, I was giving the same lesson to a large group of people. It was the audience that differed. Some people get their feelings hurt if they don't have the right answer, some didn't want to be educated because it made them feel inferior, or they felt the course material was too basic. Of course I had to tailor the material for a large and somewhat diverse group of people so I had no choice.
> 
> At first I was hurt by this, because I really wanted to engage everyone in the class positively. Ultimately I learned that I cannot control how people will react to being 'told' something vs being 'taught' something, it was up to them how they were going to internalize the class. So I cannot control how people react emotionally when I disagree with them and utilize reasonable assumptions and logic to explain my position. (Live long and Prosper  )
> 
> So in this thread I have clearly stated over and over why I feel the police bear the lion's share of responsibility for the death of the rottie.
> 
> As to Rosby's leaving, I'm an Occam's Razor kind of gal. You can extrapolate several different scenarios of why he was heading to his car and if he was going to leave or not but that would contradict what we saw in the video and would require injecting other assumed scenarios none of which could be verified.
> 
> Therefore, based on what Mr. Rosby himself said and the corroboration of actions he took as seen on the video my argument is far stronger.
> 
> He was leaving.
> 
> Things we know: One - no crime scene tape, Two - stayed behind the patrol cars, Three - the charges against him are silly at worst and vague at best.
> 
> So in this particular incident it is reasonable to come to the conclusion that the police were in the wrong.
> 
> Additonally NOT directed at you Dani, this is in general - Some here have said that he should sue the police (more). While that is probably his only recourse it's really a stupid way to run a society. I really didn't like it when Renee suggested that as a 'solution' to bad policing. Two costs arise from these types of situations 1) if the plaintiff wins it's we the tax payers who pay 2) it creates a really bad vibe between the police and community of distrust.
> 
> I think, in general, we are whittling away at the buffer zones that make our country the greatest country in the world through short sightedness and greed. Police should *not* be amongst the lowest paid gov't employees. They should be well trained and well compensated because when they are they will have *fewer* problems like this incident. We are doing this in other areas too, everyone wants to have well organized, safe and efficient services but no one wants to pay for it. So while you keep pointing out that things are much better then the 60s - 70s those improvements came about because of public involvement, training, more awareness not only in the police work but also in society in general. It's all interconnected. We're chipping away at these safety margins thinking that some how these gains were a given, not something worked for and paid for by previous generations. In other words, we take way too much for granted.


To the first comments...I don't think you have ever understood my comment about "demeaning." Ms.Maria responded to my explanation and said she understood my thoughts on opinions, and that post has been deleted by MODs because of a very threatening inappropriate comment that has been deleted (not by Ms.Maria, by someone else). I really think you are misunderstanding my use of the word 'demeaning.' I think it is demeaning and frankly very immature to criticize someone for seeking more information....that's the ONLY thing I said was demeaning to do(so far). Instead you've turned it into me feeling demeaned because you disagree with me, and even take it as far as "sometimes people feel demeaned when they are on the wrong side of the argument" Seriously? You're going to tell me what my feelings not only are....but what they mean??? Throughout this whole thread you have been very "know-it-all." I think that by you NOT looking for further information, and accusing others that are, of being pro-police, and not objective....that you yourself look very subjective. It IS a very demeaning thing to assume that because someone disagrees with you, you compare those opinions/disagreeements to people in your class who didn't "like" the material, "didn't understand" etc...maybe you DID talk down to people, and some of the class just didn't care or weren't effected by it(some people can't help 'talking down'). Instead you've decided to take the road where everyone who felt that way was missing something...self esteem, understanding, etc...you really seem to think you have everyone and everything figured out...and anyone who doesn't agree with YOUR opinion, "doesn't understand" "feels bad because they are wrong" etc....that's a terrible viewpoint to have in debating....let alone TEACHING....and honestly, I'm not surprised at all that you had those responses from people in your class.....nor am I surprised you decided they felt that way for the reasons you listed. :-/

Gwen, I couldn't agree more with the quote in blue. FWIW, you seem to feel very passionately about the teachers of this nation (only assuming this because you have brought them up several times in threads we've talked about), and I think the same thing is true of teachers....not that they need VAST improvements, but that *most are salaried EXTREMELY low, work 60+ hours a week, and end up putting their own money into supplies for the students (I have quite a few teacher friends). This does not appeal to the "best of the best" when it comes to brilliant minded-adults teaching our children(they'd much rather use their minds in better paying avenues). 

I also NEVER said that where we have come from was 'expected' or easy in any way.....NOTHING in this country came about that way. Please don't assume that I think OR feel that way. I just think it's very "dooms day" to say, "all police are out of control, power hungry, power abusive...." (not direct quotes from you, but others). And I think we ARE improving, I just don't think THIS case is an example of much to improve upon.....Like others said, there wer PLENTY of people video taping that were further back, not being disruptive, and not involving pets....he was being *disruptive* during an *active shooter* robbery. Context is *everything*.


----------



## Fade2Black

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Sheesh.
> 
> See I wonder if it's the unions that protect these guys?
> 
> Keep in mind every time this PO messes up like this it costs the entire community.
> 
> (it should be noted that while many public sector unions are being legislated out of existence police unions (which are public sector as well) often are being spared. Think about that for a second........)


They do but that's the unions job so I don't blame them. I blame the Prosecutors, Judges and some members of the public that enable Cops to do as they please (like that video I posted of a cop entering a residence without a warrant and murdering an innocent civilian, and the story where the citizen was savagely beaten)......

This video was from the Puerto Rican day parade in Phil. A 260 lb Police Lt. punched a 115 lb woman in the face. He said he wasn't trying to hurt her. Just knock a beer bottle out of her hand (the cop story changed. first it was water or silly string). He was actually fired and charged with simple assault (you hit an officer like that and it's aggravated assault) thanx to the Phil Mayor, other political leaders and the public who were outraged. Any way a judge covered up for him and found him not guilty.. That Thug cop I believe has also had other brutality charges filed against him in the past.... Think the woman got 75,000 from the city....

Until enough if us want Police really held accountable they will continue to do as they please and get away with it.....










> You can't have LE going in to court and making up new laws as they go to suit their agenda that's not justice.


Why cops lie by Peter Keane former SF Police commissioner......

Why cops lie - SFGate


----------



## DaniFani

Gwen, you keep saying he did nothing illegal and was leaving...obviously the leaving part is up for debate...but he *admitted* to having his radio too loud and *not* complying...leading to the obstruction charge...you asked if it was right to detain him? He admitted to obstruction (radio)....by his admittance, I would say yes, they had every right to detain him.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Yes indeed. That's why my friend did not fight back recently over the cop who threatened her reputation if she didn't give up the dog she had fostered for 6 months. He too made things up as he went along totally ignoring county ordinances and telling her he would just call the judge to find something to charge her with.




Blanketback said:


> Although, if you're suing them, it might be wise to assume they do


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Yup.

But in leaving he would have been complying....

You know to be perfectly honest, as I watched the video, I got mad at Rosby, I really did. I got mad because he wasn't thinking about his innocent dog at his side. I would NEVER ever put one of my dogs in that situation so it's not easy for me to stick to my argument....but I really feel he didn't cross any serious enough lines for the police to escalate.



DaniFani said:


> Gwen, you keep saying he did nothing illegal and was leaving...obviously the leaving part is up for debate...but he *admitted* to having his radio too loud and *not* complying...leading to the obstruction charge...you asked if it was right to detain him? He admitted to obstruction (radio)....by his admittance, I would say yes, they had every right to detain him.


----------



## DaniFani

Blanketback said:


> I think some people are forgetting that we're talking about the LAPD. Sure, if _I _get pulled over in_ my_ city, then it's just a routine traffic stop. My city is small, without a terrible amount of crime. Take any member of LAPD and put them in my jurisdiction for a week and they'll feel like they're on vacation!
> 
> When a friend of mine was pulled over by LAPD (a Canadian, on vacation) he was screamed at through the bullhorn to exit his vehicle and put his hands on the hood. He was approached by 2 cops, guns drawn. Yeah, you want to talk about peeing your pants...let's just say this isn't how it's done in most parts. By when you're LAPD you have a wee bit more on your plate. It's probably prudent to assume anyone will gun you down at any moment. It's an incredibly crime ridden city and has been for decades, with the gang warfare and whatnot. We're very fortunate if we're ignorant of this chaos.


Yeah, I hate to say it...but LA is no where on my list of "places I want to visit." It's sad. There is so much corruption and crime, I honestly don't know what the answer is to improve that particular city....but I know people are trying.


----------



## DaniFani

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Yup.
> 
> But in leaving he would have been complying....
> 
> You know to be perfectly honest, as I watched the video, I got mad at Rosby, I really did. I got mad because he wasn't thinking about his innocent dog at his side. I would NEVER ever put one of my dogs in that situation so it's not easy for me to stick to my argument....but I really feel he didn't cross any serious enough lines for the police to escalate.


I guess that is where we will have to leave the courts to decide...was he leaving, and in your opinion, complying. I disagree that he was(leaving), but I think we will just go round and round there, lol.

I do not think the police handcuffing was the escalation, believe it or not lol. The dog jumping out of the car was the escalation, imo. Again, something we will have to leave up to the courts.


----------



## Swifty

Gwenhwyfair said:


> 1) Did they *really* need to stop Rosby from leaving, escalate the situation, hand cuff him and then come up with 'charges' like 'walking a large dog'. Just because you choose to ignore those important points doesn't mean they don't exist.


Yes, they should have stopped him from leaving and they should have handcuffed him. He was acting unusually and acting aggressively around a tense and hostile situation. His actions jumped up his position on the 'threat meter'. He needed to be shut down for his own safety and to ensure the safety of the officers.



Gwenhwyfair said:


> 2) Did they *really* need to shoot the dog? That's another question that may come up and I agree it's more of a grey area. I think they could have handled it differently but since they were already on the path of ESCALATING the situation that's what happens.


Yes, it is entirely correct to shoot an unknown dog that has shown itself to be a potentially serious threat.



Gwenhwyfair said:


> In Blue we agree and that is a VERY important point. He didn't physically interfere which greatly weakens your argument.


This is entirely incorrect. Playing loud music, by itself, warrants the charges. Actually getting out of his vehicle and walking toward police is just extra incentive to arrest him.



Gwenhwyfair said:


> We are just going to have to agree that we disagree on this because I'm not going to change my mind unless actual evidence is presented that Rosby was really in the wrong. 'Walking a large dog' is a real charge? C'mon, if that's not a red flag what is?


The 'actual evidence' is that video. From the moment he drove up he acted in a way that interfered with the crime scene. He stopped, music blaring, then parked and began walking toward the police with a weapon (the big dog is a potentially serious threat). If he hadn't actually stopped moving or had been aggressively uncooperative I would have expected him to be shot by officers and I would have thought them justified in feeling threatened. You do not behave aggressively in a standoff involving guns and think yourself immune.



Gwenhwyfair said:


> Apparently this particular PD has a habit of trumping up charges too.


Even if that's true, *everything I saw in the video justifies arresting the owner*. I'd like to see him fined for the cleanup involved in the dog's killing as justice for his terrible and irresponsible actions, but that would be too cruel even if it would be perfectly fair.


----------



## Dainerra

and, honestly, there is a certain point where you can no longer just say "ok I'm leaving now the situation is over"


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

For the record, my personal interactions with the police have been professional to friendly.

When I get stopped at those police check points where they look at your license and tag I've had Ilda or Smitty with me.

They are protective of me and 'their' car. When the police approach Ilda, who is vocal, does her loud warning barks. I always tell the PO I'm sorry she is barking at you and every time they have smiled and said, "She's doing her job". She settles very quickly when she realizes there is no threat and they usually are impressed with her.

Just a couple of weeks ago a local PO stopped to compliment my Ilda while we were training at the park and we chatted about dogs. He has a GSD (pet - not police K9) and we talked about how much we love this breed.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Whether he was interfering or not *is* debatable.

I've made my case, you've made yours here on the internet.

We disagree and ultimately it will be up the courts to decide.



Swifty said:


> Yes, they should have stopped him from leaving and handcuffing him. He was acting unusually and acting aggressively around a tense and hostile situation. He needed to be shut down.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is entirely correct to shoot an unknown dog that has shown itself to be a potentially serious threat.
> 
> 
> 
> This is entirely incorrect. Playing loud music, by itself, warrants the charges. Actually getting out of his vehicle and walking toward police is just extra incentive to arrest him.
> 
> 
> 
> The 'actual evidence' is that video. From the moment he drove up he acted in a way that interfered with the crime scene. He stopped, music blaring, then parked and began walking toward the police with a weapon (the big dog is a potentially serious threat). If he hadn't actually stopped moving I would have expected him to be shot by officers and I would have thought them justified in feeling threatened. You do not behave aggressively in a standoff involving guns and think yourself immune.
> 
> 
> 
> Even if that's true, *everything I saw in the video justifies arresting the owner*. I'd like to see him fined for the cleanup involved in the dog's killing as justice for his terrible and irresponsible actions, but that would be too cruel even if it would be perfectly fair.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

True - but in this incident the officers were pretty far down the sidewalk and only told him to stop as he appeared to be leaving. I actually thought they would have done something sooner.

Rosby admits he recognized the officer who he had a suit against and the officer recognized him. That's when the dynamics started to really change....



Dainerra said:


> and, honestly, there is a certain point where you can no longer just say "ok I'm leaving now the situation is over"


----------



## Swifty

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Whether he was interfering or not *is* debatable.


No, it isn't. The very fact that he attracted the attention of officers *by definition* distracted them from the crime in progress. No ifs, ands, or buts.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Yup, it will be up to the courts now. 

Sad situation though.

Me thinks egos on both sides got in the way....

So now I'm admittedly really speculating here but I think Rosby being already angry with this PD was pushing it. Then when he recognized one of the POs from the suit he decided it was time to high tail it out of there, too late 'cause the officer recognized him too and decided to make HIS point.

Again, admittedly totally speculative on my part but going by human nature ('specially men...   sorry guys...) trying to one up each other on the authority scale....Rosby pushed it just a little too long...and his dog paid for it. 




DaniFani said:


> I guess that is where we will have to leave the courts to decide...was he leaving, and in your opinion, complying. I disagree that he was(leaving), but I think we will just go round and round there, lol.
> 
> I do not think the police handcuffing was the escalation, believe it or not lol. The dog jumping out of the car was the escalation, imo. Again, something we will have to leave up to the courts.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

I disagree and it's up the courts now, NOT you.



Swifty said:


> No, it isn't. The very fact that he attracted the attention of officers *by definition* distracted them from the crime in progress. No ifs, ands, or buts.


----------



## Dainerra

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Rosby admits he recognized the officer who he had a suit against and the officer recognized him. That's when the dynamics started to really change....


and that wasn't an idea that the whole situation might be a bad idea? In my opinion, if I follow around someone that I had a bad experience with and start videotaping them at work, hoping to catch them doing something wrong then I AM antagonizing and escalating the situation. Yes, even just by being there.

But, he wasn't back where the rest of the crowd was gathered. He was blatant and obvious about his approach and the fact that he was videotaping. Kind of a "hey cops I'm here and I'm going to catch you doing something wrong!" The fact that he has a history with one of the cops makes what he did more HIS fault than it already is.


----------



## Swifty

Gwenhwyfair said:


> I disagree and it's up the courts now, NOT you.


The courts will decide whether it meets the legal threshold of 'obstruction' but the courts can't change logical definitions, nor do the courts determine the owner's moral culpability. The dog's owner was the *definition* of a distraction to the police. He deserves no public sympathy beyond what is given for losing a friend. His role in his dog's death entitles him to moral condemnation regardless of whatever legal troubles that arise.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Boy, you do think you are in a position of authority too, trying to tell people who they should sympathize with? Are you a police officer by chance?





Swifty said:


> The courts will decide whether it meets the legal threshold of 'obstruction', but the courts can't change logical definitions, nor do the courts determine the owner's moral culpability. The dog's owner was the *definition* of a distraction to the police. He deserves no public sympathy beyond what is given for losing a friend. His role in the death entitles him to moral condemnation regardless of whatever legal troubles that arise.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Well, my friend could have complained about the officer who bullied her but she did not because she feared the retribution the officer threatened her with. She would not have been breaking any laws either, but the PO was going to find something if he had too.

Rosby doesn't have that fear, apparently.

That doesn't mean he is actually in the wrong though.

That's where I'm at with this. Just because they 'could' handcuff and hold Rosby doesn't mean they actually were in the right.

It'll be up to the courts to decide.

Apparently this PD has already lost some of these types of cases......



Dainerra said:


> and that wasn't an idea that the whole situation might be a bad idea? In my opinion, if I follow around someone that I had a bad experience with and start videotaping them at work, hoping to catch them doing something wrong then I AM antagonizing and escalating the situation. Yes, even just by being there.
> 
> But, he wasn't back where the rest of the crowd was gathered. He was blatant and obvious about his approach and the fact that he was videotaping. Kind of a "hey cops I'm here and I'm going to catch you doing something wrong!" The fact that he has a history with one of the cops makes what he did more HIS fault than it already is.


----------



## Swifty

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Boy, you do think you are in a position of authority too, trying to tell people who they should sympathize with? Are you a police officer by chance?


Unless you are operating under a highly unusual set of rules, nothing this guy did entitles him to protection from moral condemnation with the _possible_ exception of putting his dog in the car before being handcuffed. However, he used *obviously* and *laughably* insufficient safeguards to prevent the dog from leaving the car. It does not appear that he was using any sort of safety harness when driving the dog around and the windows were down enough that the dog could (obviously) jump out. From beginning to end, from the moment he drove up to the scene, the owner made bad decision after bad decision. His only responsible decision is that he only _mildly_ resisted when being detained.

Using any reasonable set of moral guidelines, what this guy did is reprehensible given it resulted in the death of his loyal friend.


----------



## Dainerra

impede -to retard in movement or progress by means of obstacles or hindrances; obstruct; hinder.

hinder - to cause delay, interruption, or difficulty in; hamper; impede

and that is what he was doing. common sense dictionary definition of "obstructing an investigation" "impeding an investigation" or whatever it might be called in that jurisdiction. It doesn't matter exactly HOW you do it. Just that it is makes it more difficult for the officers to do their job. You could be withholding information. You could be lying. You could be blaring your stereo. 
All of those have nothing to do with WHY the dog was shot.

The dog was shot because the owner entered a volatile situation without taking precautions for the safety of his dog. Period. It would have been no different than if he left the dog in the car to begin with and it jumped out and was hit by a car. In the end, the dog died because his owner did not secure him in the car. He had plenty of opportunity to do that when he put the dog in the car.


----------



## DaniFani

Gwen did you see my response to your comment about police salaries and the class you taught?


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Nope, I'm the lone ranger here   ....and really should be moving on, but I'll find it real quick....



DaniFani said:


> Gwen did you see my response to your comment about police salaries and the class you taught?


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

In red, wow, O.K. that's not cool that happened.


As for the rest wow, too much, my gosh. We're talking about a very sad incident here and I've not felt demeaned, at all. I stick to my arguments and really try not to argue about 'the person' and some of the comments directed at me were blunt, but I'm cool with that!




DaniFani said:


> To the first comments...I don't think you have ever understood my comment about "demeaning." Ms.Maria responded to my explanation and said she understood my thoughts on opinions, *and that post has been deleted by MODs because of a very threatening inappropriate comment that has been deleted*(not by Ms.Maria, by someone else). I really think you are misunderstanding my use of the word 'demeaning.' I think it is demeaning and frankly very immature to criticize someone for seeking more information....that's the ONLY thing I said was demeaning to do(so far). Instead you've turned it into me feeling demeaned because you disagree with me, and even take it as far as "sometimes people feel demeaned when they are on the wrong side of the argument" Seriously? (hehehe yes seriously... )You're going to tell me what my feelings not only are....but what they mean??? Throughout this whole thread you have been very "know-it-all." Nope I've stuck to my points and avoided speculation except for one post where I admitted it. We *are all looking at the same evidence* therefore on the same playing field so it could be said in that case when we decide one way or the other we* all are 'know it alls'* by adhereing to a POV. It is, ultimately a level playing field though. it I think that by you NOT looking for further information, and accusing others that are, of being pro-police, and not objective....that you yourself look very subjective. You're putting words in my posts, I did not say that, I've repeated my reasoning over and over though. Normally I don't respond to being put on the defense which is why sometimes I don't respond to your posts. I am only as objective as the evidence WE ALL have access to in this thread. Pot Kettle friend! It IS a very demeaning thing to assume that because someone disagrees with you, you compare those opinions/disagreeements to people in your class who didn't "like" the material, "didn't understand" etc...maybe you DID talk down to people, and some of the class just didn't care or weren't effected by it(some people can't help 'talking down'). Nope. Some of the people wrote glowing and positive reviews and some did not. They were in the same class. This is how human nature works. Everyone is different and internalizes things differently. See I had NO control of who was assigned to the class, so if they put a MSEE in there and people with just a H.S. degree I had to teach all of them in the same class. So I tried my best but some felt the class was a waste of time. What they did not do was think about WHO assigned them to take the class and rather directed their feelings at me. Instead you've decided to take the road where everyone who felt that way was missing something...self esteem, understanding, etc...you really seem to think you have everyone and everything figured out...and anyone who doesn't agree with YOUR opinion, "doesn't understand" "feels bad because they are wrong" etc....that's a terrible viewpoint to have in debating....let alone TEACHING....and honestly, I'm not surprised at all that you had those responses from people in your class.....nor am I surprised you decided they felt that way for the reasons you listed. :-/ At first you said I was misunderstanging the whole demeaning comment due the part in red above and then you go on to make a long post about how you think those who disagree with you are being 'demeaning'.
> 
> Gwen, I couldn't agree more with the quote in blue. FWIW, you seem to feel very passionately about the teachers of this nation (only assuming this because you have brought them up several times in threads we've talked about), and I think the same thing is true of teachers....not that they need VAST improvements, but that *most are salaried EXTREMELY low, work 60+ hours a week, and end up putting their own money into supplies for the students (I have quite a few teacher friends). This does not appeal to the "best of the best" when it comes to brilliant minded-adults teaching our children(they'd much rather use their minds in better paying avenues).
> 
> I feel passionately about being proactive, realistic and pragmatic. Not just teachers in particular. I think we are very short sighted in this country, increasingly so. We've gotten to this point where being right is more important then actually getting it right.
> 
> I also NEVER said that where we have come from was 'expected' or easy in any way.....NOTHING in this country came about that way. Please don't assume that I think OR feel that way. I just think it's very "dooms day" to say, "all police are out of control, power hungry, power abusive...." (not direct quotes from you, but others). I said in my post this was not directed at you Dani, I said 'in general' so why are YOU taking it personally? And I think we ARE improving, That's not what you wrote when you agreed with HunterisGreat about some legislation regarding dog breeding? You guys indicated the country was going down hill. I have no doubt you a very smart person, but I guess because I've been involved in some really tough debates over the years with many different people *most* things people say don't get to me personally. We should be debating *about what happened to the rottie,* not about each others feelings (except in the case of abuse like the post that was deleted!) I just don't think THIS case is an example of much to improve upon.....Like others said, there wer PLENTY of people video taping that were further back, not being disruptive, and not involving pets....he was being *disruptive* during an *active shooter* robbery. Context is *everything*.


 
btw- you've taken some pretty harsh tones when debating PO training methods. I didn't think you were being demeaning, you were being direct sometimes blunt and defending YOUR POV. The people you were debating didn't appreciate you but I understood why. That's how it works. It's a two way street Dani.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Dani,

I sent you a PM. Hope you take it with  and  as it was intended.

Now I've spent too much time on this today and have to get back to work!


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

I'll leave the moral part of it up to THE higher authority.  Lest I be interfering with Him.  

The legalities of it will probably be settled in court and your opinion may well be proven wrong then (mine too of course).



Swifty said:


> Unless you are operating under a highly unusual set of rules, nothing this guy did entitles him to protection from moral condemnation with the _possible_ exception of putting his dog in the car before being handcuffed. However, he used *obviously* and *laughably* insufficient safeguards to prevent the dog from leaving the car. It does not appear that he was using any sort of safety harness when driving the dog around and the windows were down enough that the dog could (obviously) jump out. From beginning to end, from the moment he drove up to the scene, the owner made bad decision after bad decision. His only responsible decision is that he only _mildly_ resisted when being detained.
> 
> Using any reasonable set of moral guidelines, what this guy did is reprehensible given it resulted in the death of his loyal friend.


----------



## DaniFani

Gwenhwyfair said:


> In red, wow, O.K. that's not cool that happened.
> 
> 
> As for the rest wow, too much, my gosh. We're talking about a very sad incident here and I've not felt demeaned, at all. I stick to my arguments and really try not to argue about 'the person' and some of the comments directed at me were blunt, but I'm cool with that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> btw- you've taken some pretty harsh tones when debating PO training methods. I didn't think you were being demeaning, you were being direct sometimes blunt and defending YOUR POV. The people you were debating didn't appreciate you but I understood why. That's how it works. It's a two way street Dani.


Sometimes I wish we could just debate in person with people, lol. I think so much is lost on the internet in the way of body language, tone, and it effects overall clarity.

When I said we are improving, I meant the police as a whole in the US...I didn't mean in every area(like breeding standards and regulations).

In the beginning I explained why I used the word "demeaning" in my PPs (that's why I said "so far"). Then I said I DID think it was demeaning to explain away someone's opinion about something by comparing them to those in your class who weren't educated enough, had low self-esteem (said you were talking down to them) etc...Like you said, people from all walks of life took your class. Maybe the "tougher" ones gave glowing reviews, but the "average" ones didn't or were effected by your tones....I don't know, wasn't there. People debating PO with me used that tactic and I thought it was incredibly ignorant and snobbish....they said things like, "well, a lot of people have that POV because they can't get through to their dogs." OR "Some people just don't want to put the work and time into training their dogs and that's why they are training that way." Basically saying, "you aren't as talented as me and you're lazy." No. I believe it is equally abusive to force my dog to live in a fear reactive, nervy state, because I refuse to try other options in training. But other PP's decided my reasoning behind my POV *for* me....I DO believe that is demeaning...NOT their point of view....but them dismissing mine because they decided *why* i felt the way I did...and it was usually a very immature, *demeaning* reason....lack of intelligence, patience, guilt, self-esteem...etc

I'll try one more time (I think I am having a hard time putting into words what I meant by "demeaning" and thus confusing you and maybe others). This is not directed at you, just my thoughts generally. 

I think it is demeaning to criticize someone for wanting to gather information and telling them the *reason* they are wanting to gather info is because they are cop-sympathisers, pro-cop, etc...The ONLY other thing I think is demeaning is taking someones opinion or POV and telling *them* why *they* have that point of view....Ex: "Sometimes people who feel that way because they are *really feeling guilty" OR "Sometimes people who aren't educated enough have that POV" OR "I know insecure people and because of their insecurities they have that POV" or "the only reason people train like that is because they can't get through to their dogs." So, I hope that clarifies my POV lol. I don't think it's right, mature, etc...to tell someone WHY they have their POV. I don't care what you're POV is, I don't think it's right for me to say, "well you just have that POV because you aren't educated enough." THAT is demeaning, NOT someone disagreeing with me....someone telling ME why I feel the way I feel.

And sorry, I misread the "NOT to Dani," I thought you were referring only to the first part of that comment, lol...my bad.

And yes, of course we are all looking at the same evidence, but it's all in the interpretation....which is obviously different for everyone. Kind of like the "interpretation" of the GSD standard.

And if none of this makes any sense, sorry lol. I think this thread has been beaten to death...all the info we are going to get for now is out, and I *think all POVs have been stated


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

I agree, a lot is lost on the net, just the screen and black and white type.

Anyhoo, thank you so much for the nice response PM and the below post!

In Blue- I can totally empathize, it happens to me too (see cop hater comments in this thread) but it's part and parcel with debating this stuff on the net I think...doesn't make it right but it happens.

I appreciate this post and it has helped me to understand where you come from much better. 

(btw in my class example I was trying to share that sometimes people will respond negatively no matter what or how you say something. I was terribly hurt by it at first, I felt like I had failed. Then I started thinking about how I could improve my presentation and I realized I couldn't. I had to deal with the people who were placed in my class, it wasn't sorted out by experience level and the people weren't given an option of whether they needed to take it or not. So some may have resented having to go in the first place. The reasons are myriad but generally I found people who felt happy to have been hired, grateful for the opportunity appreciated the extra training. At the end of the day I didn't make the rules and as often happens in corp world I was put between a rock and hard place. I had some people with a lot previous knowledge and some with little to none and I had to do the best I could. I learned (this was many, many years ago now) that people are going to internalize messages differently and that's not something the speaker can necessarily control. )





DaniFani said:


> Sometimes I wish we could just debate in person with people, lol. I think so much is lost on the internet in the way of body language, tone, and it effects overall clarity.
> 
> When I said we are improving, I meant the police as a whole in the US...I didn't mean in every area(like breeding standards and regulations).
> 
> In the beginning I explained why I used the word "demeaning" in my PPs (that's why I said "so far"). Then I said I DID think it was demeaning to explain away someone's opinion about something by comparing them to those in your class who weren't educated enough, had low self-esteem (said you were talking down to them) etc...Like you said, people from all walks of life took your class. Maybe the "tougher" ones gave glowing reviews, but the "average" ones didn't or were effected by your tones....I don't know, wasn't there. People debating PO with me used that tactic and I thought it was incredibly ignorant and snobbish....they said things like, "well, a lot of people have that POV because they can't get through to their dogs." OR "Some people just don't want to put the work and time into training their dogs and that's why they are training that way." Basically saying, "you aren't as talented as me and you're lazy." No. I believe it is equally abusive to force my dog to live in a fear reactive, nervy state, because I refuse to try other options in training. But other PP's decided my reasoning behind my POV *for* me....I DO believe that is demeaning...NOT their point of view....but them dismissing mine because they decided *why* i felt the way I did...and it was usually a very immature, *demeaning* reason....lack of intelligence, patience, guilt, self-esteem...etc
> 
> I'll try one more time (I think I am having a hard time putting into words what I meant by "demeaning" and thus confusing you and maybe others). This is not directed at you, just my thoughts generally.
> 
> I think it is demeaning to criticize someone for wanting to gather information and telling them the *reason* they are wanting to gather info is because they are cop-sympathisers, pro-cop, etc...The ONLY other thing I think is demeaning is taking someones opinion or POV and telling *them* why *they* have that point of view....Ex: "Sometimes people who feel that way because they are *really feeling guilty" OR "Sometimes people who aren't educated enough have that POV" OR "I know insecure people and because of their insecurities they have that POV" or "the only reason people train like that is because they can't get through to their dogs." So, I hope that clarifies my POV lol. I don't think it's right, mature, etc...to tell someone WHY they have their POV. I don't care what you're POV is, I don't think it's right for me to say, "well you just have that POV because you aren't educated enough." THAT is demeaning, *NOT someone disagreeing with me....someone telling ME why I feel the way I feel*.
> 
> And sorry, I misread the "NOT to Dani," I thought you were referring only to the first part of that comment, lol...my bad.
> 
> And yes, of course we are all looking at the same evidence, but it's all in the interpretation....which is obviously different for everyone. Kind of like the "interpretation" of the GSD standard.
> 
> And if none of this makes any sense, sorry lol. I think this thread has been beaten to death...all the info we are going to get for now is out, and I *think all POVs have been stated


----------



## Msmaria

Dainerra said:


> and that wasn't an idea that the whole situation might be a bad idea? In my opinion, if I follow around someone that I had a bad experience with and start videotaping them at work, hoping to catch them doing something wrong then I AM antagonizing and escalating the situation. Yes, even just by being there.
> 
> But, he wasn't back where the rest of the crowd was gathered. He was blatant and obvious about his approach and the fact that he was videotaping. Kind of a "hey cops I'm here and I'm going to catch you doing something wrong!" The fact that he has a history with one of the cops makes what he did more HIS fault than it already is.


Just so were all on the same page. In Ca you can not secretly video tape the police. You have to be obvious about it. Maybe not as obvious as this guy, but that is an opinion. He may have just known this and therefore made it very clear he was recording them, just so they couldn't arrest him for it.


----------



## Msmaria

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Dainerra a member whose husband was (is?) a Police officer noted some salaries for local police to be around $17K per year.
> 
> That's abysmally low. If you think that will get you the cream of the crop as a *rule* then you are wrong.
> 
> Furthermore a low paid cop trying to struggle to get by on that meager salary will be more susceptible to corrupting influences. Human nature 101. That is the macro point I'm trying to make and btw- sticking up for police at the same time!!
> 
> 
> Y
> The owner exercise poor judgement but technically did not break any laws as can be seen by the charges filed, like 'walking a large dog'. If they have to come up with charges like that to justify shooting the dog then you know they are grasping at straws.
> 
> See the difference here is I can say what Rosby did wasn't the wisest thing, I would not have acted that way but at the end of the day the question is, did he *really* break any laws?
> 
> That's the ultimate litmus test, that's how we maintain a modicum of justice in this country for the average Joe/Jane. You can't have LE going in to court and making up new laws as they go to suit their agenda that's not justice.
> 
> So while Rosby was not being as cautious as I would have been I still have to maintain that he should not be held at fault. If he was following 'the rules' he's technically not in the wrong, period.


We also have relatives who are cops in CA starting salary Los Angeles 39,000. Very good retirement. Most retire early. Not saying they don't deserve the early retirement as I'm sure this is a stressful job. Just stating facts as I know it. Who ever stated 17,000 must have looked at the lowest possible in the US. In CA that police officer family could be below poverty level and eligible for welfare. Thats how low 17,000 is here. I doubt 17,000 is an average amount.


----------



## Dainerra

Msmaria said:


> Just so were all on the same page. In Ca you can not secretly video tape the police. You have to be obvious about it. Maybe not as obvious as this guy, but that is an opinion. He may have just known this and therefore made it very clear he was recording them, just so they couldn't arrest him for it.


there are other people there that were recording on their cell phones. They weren't being secretive about it and the cops were paying them no mind. People record incidents like this all the time. So does the media.
the rule of no "secretly recording" means that you can't have a camera hidden in your glases or a be wearing a wire under your shirt. He wanted it to be obvious and make a statement that "Hey, I'm here and I'm watching you!" He even admitted it himself - he wanted to catch them doing something wrong. And once someone recognized who he was, his agenda became even more obvious and an issue. He wasn't there to catch the live action or to have a video he could submit to the media or post on facebook about the polica/hostage situation. He wanted to prove that they were corrupt and that they would do something wrong. He wasn't a bystander videotaping; he immersed himself into the action by directly walking up, blaring his music, etc

Powered by SelectionLinks​about this ad


----------



## Dainerra

Msmaria said:


> We also have relatives who are cops in CA starting salary Los Angeles 39,000. Very good retirement. Most retire early. Not saying they don't deserve the early retirement as I'm sure this is a stressful job. Just stating facts as I know it. Who ever stated 17,000 must have looked at the lowest possible in the US. In CA that police officer family could be below poverty level and eligible for welfare. Thats how low 17,000 is here. I doubt 17,000 is an average amount.


$17,000 is the starting salary for a Sheriff's deputy in the county I live in. I know because my husband worked there and, yes, we qualified for welfare. All but the "senior" deputies actually qualify for some type of government assistance. 
In some small towns, a police officer might make $14,000 if he is full time. Most prefer to have several part time people and they might only earn $7000 a year. But they have to be on call for emergency situations so holding down a second job isn't really an option. 
Most of our police patrols are actually civilian volunteers who have no power or authority. They can't write tickets without permission from the Sargent on duty; they can't run radar; they can't carry any type of weapon. They are bodies to drive around the cars and provide a "visible presence" that will hopefully deter crime. 
Most nights we actually only have 2-3 actual officers on duty for almost 600sq miles.


----------



## selzer

Betty said:


> It would be interesting to find out the protocol. What do they do with stray dogs?


The dog warden can take stray dogs to the shelter, and they pay the shelter a set fee for a set number of days, thus the shelter often will not take in an owner-turn-in, or even a good-samaritin-turn-in (someone finds a dog on the side of the road and drives it to the shelter -- been there, done that), because they want to keep a couple of kennels free in case the dog warden wants to drop off a dog -- they're paying customers, and the shelter run by donations needs the money.



boomer11 said:


> well then clearly you dont have a very good understanding of american law AT ALL! but to learn you dont even need to go to law school;* just watch the tv show cops. thats what i do*


Well, then you have something I don't. I don't have any TV channels, and haven't had for over a decade. That's why I was stopped by the cops twice in the last week or so, listening to the ball game on my car radio in town where I can catch the AM station.

I was just about ready to commit a minor assault on the radio station when they stopped airing the game at 2AM to put on ESPN-live or all night or something of the sort. I thought it would just be a quick update, but they actually stopped a game in progress at 2AM to put some stupid radio program on! There was a 2:37 minute rain delay in that game, and then the lights wen out in the sixth or top of the seventh and that took another 12 minutes. We were down 6-5 in the ninth, when the cop stopped me -- he asked me "What game." 

I replied "The Indians" like anyone should know that. (Give me a break it was 2AM.) I explained the above about the game -- not why I was in town listening. And he said he hoped we win, and left. Then the station flips to some regularly scheduled program. I was ready to drive down the the station and smack them all. 

Finally I was able to hear the last minute on 1100AM. We lost at 2:07AM, which did not improve my mood at all. I vowed I would call in the morning and complain to the station that they should not have dropped the game in the top of the ninth! 

The only TV, I will waste my sorry attention on is boxing, football, bull-riding, and baseball -- though baseball is almost better to just listen to. Radio commentators are better in both baseball and football. I will watch those at my parents, but they are old now, and want me to leave by midnight. They MIGHT be reasonable if it is a Browns game, but the Indians are pretty much out of luck, beyond 1AM, they boot me out.


----------



## ken k

anybody see this?, hopefully other departments across the country are watching this and take note, they need to change policeys 
“Message to the Community from the Hawthorne Chief of Police” from Hawthorne Police Department, CA : Nixle


----------



## selzer

ken k said:


> anybody see this?, hopefully other departments across the country are watching this and take note, they need to change policeys
> “Message to the Community from the Hawthorne Chief of Police” from Hawthorne Police Department, CA : Nixle


I read down the comments below that. I think that more people are willing to say something, and even do something because it was a dog that got shot. People all over the world hate these guys. 

I don't know what that says about people in general. They say that babies and dogs sell. Well, advertisers should take note and get a dog in every commercial.


----------



## Mrs.K

selzer said:


> I read down the comments below that. I think that more people are willing to say something, and even do something because it was a dog that got shot. People all over the world hate these guys.
> 
> I don't know what that says about people in general. They say that babies and dogs sell. Well, advertisers should take note and get a dog in every commercial.


I think it has more to do with the fact that dogs have a different standard in society these days and that shootings of dogs have become outrageously common. People are fed up with the police and how police conducts it's business... I wouldn't be surprised if at some point we'd have demonstrations and riots on our hands over stuff like that. At some point, the public will no longer take that kind of abuse anymore.


----------



## Dainerra

Mrs.K said:


> I think it has more to do with the fact that dogs have a different standard in society these days and that shootings of dogs have become outrageously common. People are fed up with the police and how police conducts it's business... I wouldn't be surprised if at some point we'd have demonstrations and riots on our hands over stuff like that. At some point, the public will no longer take that kind of abuse anymore.


riots to the point where people are threatening to shoot young children? Or bludgeon them to death in front of their parents?
It's not about being fed up with the police at this point. It's just plain mob mentality and the anonymity of the internet.
I really don't think that it's becoming "more common" at all. More reported in the media, yes. But why is it being reported more? Because kids and puppies sell papers. 
But the "police officer saves pup" stories DON'T sell well. Sure, everyone says "oh how cute" when there is good news. But give the public a tragedy and they will spend money hand over fist to keep up with the latest gossip. And, so much journalism today is exactly that - gossip. They don't worry about waiting for the facts or verifying the actual events. It's just a rush to be the first one to tell the story


----------



## Mrs.K

Dainerra said:


> *riots to the point where people are threatening to shoot young children?* Or bludgeon them to death in front of their parents?
> It's not about being fed up with the police at this point. It's just plain mob mentality and the anonymity of the internet.
> *I really don't think that it's becoming "more common" at all. More reported in the media, yes. But why is it being reported more? Because kids and puppies sell papers.*


Definitely not over shooting dogs but over abusive cops, I can see a friendly demonstration turn into a riot. 

That might be true too. And maybe it's not a bad thing that there is shed more light onto this.


----------



## Dainerra

Mrs.K said:


> That might be true too. And maybe it's not a bad thing that there is shed more light onto this.


but is it really shedding light on the situation? There are hundreds of thousands of police officers on duty at even given moment and millions of dogs. How many dogs are shot out of all of those encounters? I couldn't even begin to do the math but I can tell you that you have a better chance of hitting the lottery.
In my area, you have a much better chance of your dog getting shot by a neighbor than the police.


----------



## TommyB681

this is completely the owners fault. He got himself arrested for endagering and hindering those at an active crime scene and left his dog unsecure in a car with the windows down. I would have shot it too


----------



## wdkiser

I find it curious how people react so differently to the cops.

I used to work in an area that was high crime. One afternoon I left work early (3pm) and cut through an apartment complex. I am white, the area is mainly black. A cop pulled me over in the complex and said I did not make a complete stop at the stop sign. To be honest, I don't remember if I did or not as I was focused on getting home early. Anyway, he was sure I was there to buy drugs. He asked me several questions and then asked if I would let him search my vehicle. I said sure. He searched and it took him 30 minutes. He didn't find anything because I don't do drugs or buy drugs. I did not get verbal with him, I was respectful and let him do his job. 

So the cop probably made an assumption. Probably profiling involved as well. I didn't enjoy being pulled over, but it didn't piss me off either, because I recognize he has a job to do. If I had gotten all mouthy with the cop, I am sure he could have made my day worse. I didn't, so he didn't. In the end, he gave me a verbal warning to come to a complete stop at the stop sign. 

I believe in my heart a lot of people that I have read their posts would not have fared so well. I didn't cower to the cop, but I wasn't defiant either. I let him do his job. If I had reacted as some on here say they would, I am pretty sure it would have turned out differently for them.

My point is, your actions and attitude go a long way as to how a situation plays out - whether dealing with the police, dealing with your boss, or your spouse or kids or even your dog.

Seems like some are just out to prove the cops are always wrong and always abusing their power, so they will jump at any chance to verbally "mix it up" with the cops. That is not illegal, but why poke the bear with a stick? Some people just feel that need.


----------



## wdkiser

And I don't understand the continual posting of other incidents of dogs being shot? It reminds me of the ASPCA and their ads.


----------



## sparra

Dainerra said:


> $17,000 is the starting salary for a Sheriff's deputy in the county I live in. I know because my husband worked there and, yes, we qualified for welfare. All but the "senior" deputies actually qualify for some type of government assistance.
> In some small towns, a police officer might make $14,000 if he is full time. Most prefer to have several part time people and they might only earn $7000 a year. But they have to be on call for emergency situations so holding down a second job isn't really an option.
> Most of our police patrols are actually civilian volunteers who have no power or authority. They can't write tickets without permission from the Sargent on duty; they can't run radar; they can't carry any type of weapon. They are bodies to drive around the cars and provide a "visible presence" that will hopefully deter crime.
> Most nights we actually only have 2-3 actual officers on duty for almost 600sq miles.


REALLY????
That is just criminal that they would be paid such a low wage.
From where I am sitting the USA would have to be one of the toughest places to be a police officer.....are they really paid so little???
They are obviously not doing it for the money.


----------



## Liesje

wdkiser said:


> I find it curious how people react so differently to the cops.
> 
> I used to work in an area that was high crime. One afternoon I left work early (3pm) and cut through an apartment complex. I am white, the area is mainly black. A cop pulled me over in the complex and said I did not make a complete stop at the stop sign. To be honest, I don't remember if I did or not as I was focused on getting home early. Anyway, he was sure I was there to buy drugs. He asked me several questions and then asked if I would let him search my vehicle. I said sure. He searched and it took him 30 minutes. He didn't find anything because I don't do drugs or buy drugs. I did not get verbal with him, I was respectful and let him do his job.
> 
> So the cop probably made an assumption. Probably profiling involved as well. I didn't enjoy being pulled over, but it didn't piss me off either, because I recognize he has a job to do. If I had gotten all mouthy with the cop, I am sure he could have made my day worse. I didn't, so he didn't. In the end, he gave me a verbal warning to come to a complete stop at the stop sign.
> 
> I believe in my heart a lot of people that I have read their posts would not have fared so well. I didn't cower to the cop, but I wasn't defiant either. I let him do his job. If I had reacted as some on here say they would, I am pretty sure it would have turned out differently for them.
> 
> My point is, your actions and attitude go a long way as to how a situation plays out - whether dealing with the police, dealing with your boss, or your spouse or kids or even your dog.
> 
> Seems like some are just out to prove the cops are always wrong and always abusing their power, so they will jump at any chance to verbally "mix it up" with the cops. That is not illegal, but why poke the bear with a stick? Some people just feel that need.


My dad has had the EXACT same experience. He was on the board for a local community center, driving home from a board meeting. This place is in a terrible part of town. He got pulled over and the cop asked to search the vehicle. My dad knew he needed a warrant but didn't feel like waiting for the cop to ultimately get one so he just let him search, nothing to hide. Later on he saw the cop at an event at the community center and the cop apologized. Ironically my dad was the one that pushed for more cops in that area because of the drugs and gang violence.


----------



## Liesje

Mrs.K said:


> I think it has more to do with the fact that dogs have a different standard in society these days and that shootings of dogs have become outrageously common. People are fed up with the police and how police conducts it's business... I wouldn't be surprised if at some point we'd have demonstrations and riots on our hands over stuff like that. At some point, the public will no longer take that kind of abuse anymore.


More common, or just in the news more? I grew up in a *really bad* part of town and it was fairly common for aggressive dogs to be loose. If the cops can't catch them relatively easily, they are shot. Despite their fancy control sticks, animal control officers aren't always that great at actually catching dogs.

Note: I haven't actually read about the incident in the OP, I'm just saying that in many parts of town, cops shooting dogs isn't national news.


----------



## Fade2Black

*Hawthorne dog shooting: What police can learn from mail carriers - latimes.com

* By Carla Hall July 5, 2013, 1:24 p.m.

There are many disturbing questions raised by the dog shooting by Hawthorne police. The video of a police officer shooting the 80-pound Rottweiler, Max, as the dog’s owner was being arrested has gone viral online and prompted outrage far beyond the South Bay city. The second most heartbreaking part of this video -- after the injured dog rolls over, flinching from the shots -- is the sound of the bystanders screaming and crying out in horror as they watch.

The video shows five police cars blocking off a street and officers halfway down the block from Leon Rosby, who saunters back and forth as he videotapes the police action. He has his dog with him on a leash. His own car is parked at the end of the block near an intersection.

Why did Hawthorne police believe it necessary to arrest Rosby in the first place? If he was a threat to whatever police matter was being played out halfway down the block, it’s not apparent on the videotape; the police officers had to walk down the block to him. Knowing what’s about to happen, Rosby puts his dog in his car with the windows down, calmly turns around, places his hands behind his back and waits to be cuffed.

After that, the dog, no doubt upset at seeing his owner taken away, barks, jumps out of the car and heads for his owner and the officers standing on the corner. Although the barking dog does confront the officers, the dog does not lunge at that point. Why didn’t the three officers all back away from the dog? They were not cornered. Behind them was plenty of street and at least one police car parked with a wide-open door. Instead, one officer reaches down toward the dog — or perhaps the leash — the dog lunges toward an officer, and then it is shot several times. Even after the dog lunged at one officer, there were two other officers there. Couldn’t they have subdued the dog, possibly with a baton?

It’s evident from the video that a fairly calm situation dramatically escalated into a tense and confusing one within seconds. And no one expects a police officer whose life is threatened by a dog to not disable or kill the dog. But just as we expect police officers to have skills and training to deal with tense situations involving people, we should expect them to be trained to deal with threatening situations involving dogs.

The Los Angeles Police Department -- a completely different agency from the Hawthorne force -- trains officers to try to mitigate situations with dogs before they get out of hand. Because dogs are so territorial, officers serving search warrants at homes carry small fire extinguishers that they can spray at a threatening dog. The big noise and burst of white powder usually make a dog back off.

Even friendly dogs often get up close to someone and bark. LAPD officers are advised to back up a bit and put their batons between themselves and a dog.

Mail carriers routinely deal with the threat of territorial dogs, and they do it without guns. They carry a pepper-based repellent spray, and, whenever they are outside their vehicles, they carry a satchel that can be put between themselves and an attacking dog.

Of course, there will be situations in which a police officer thinks force is necessary on a dog. Last year, there were 23 incidents of Los Angeles police officers firing their weapons at animals, according to an LAPD spokesman. (It’s unclear how often they actually injured an animal.) In comparison, there were 29 officer-involved shootings of people last year.
Police officers should be trained to employ a variety of approaches to dealing with a dog, including simply retreating. The tragedy of the Hawthorne situation is that there were probably a number of things the officers could have done differently so it never got to the moment of a lunging dog. 

At the very least, the Hawthorne Police Department -- and other departments that may consider this a cautionary tale -- should offer better training for officers who find themselves confronted by dogs.


----------



## Dainerra

actually, if your dog is a problem for the mail carrier, they can just tell you that they won't deliver to your house anymore. Not quite the same as what police officers deal with. 
The other people were videotaping and not a word was said by the officers. Of course, those people were at a safe distance from where there was an active situation. What if the guy had gotten shot by the gunman? Then it would have been the officers' fault for allowing him so close. That is why the police cars were blocking the street and why the officers were there - to keep someone from getting too close and getting hurt. 
The guys who stance and attitude was a challenge to the cops. He KNEW that they would say something about them getting too close.


----------



## NancyJ

Back in the poor years when I delivered paper at night I regularly had a dog try to attack me as I put the paper in the tube. Nobody would do a darned thing and the problem is the tube belonged to the neighbor, not the dog owner who said "I wish you WOULD hit it"

Ultimately, I did out of sheer frustration after calling my employer, animal control, talking with the owner of the paper tube, and the police. Dog would always limp away very quickly when it saw me drive up after that.

Not something I am proud of but after some very close calls with that dog and not being allowed to "throw" the paper instead...

I have not commented on this because have seen a section of the story and don't know the whole thing. I do have concerns about this and think part of the answer is weeding out the police forces, paying them better so you can attract more people to police work (they get paid horribly), doing what we can to make their job less stressful (realizing a lot of LE, Fire, EMS are adrenaline junkies), training them to deal with dogs, and holding them fully accountable for needless discharge of a weapon...but to do these things means we need to spend money. Sometimes penny wise = pound foolish.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Yes it is. IMO the biggest problem is the way many (not all) depts. at first just 'blow off' the incidents after they happen, that's like adding insult to injury, such as the one with the old cocker spaniel. They don't investigate until after people kick up a fuss about it.







Dainerra said:


> but is it really shedding light on the situation? There are hundreds of thousands of police officers on duty at even given moment and millions of dogs. How many dogs are shot out of all of those encounters? I couldn't even begin to do the math but I can tell you that you have a better chance of hitting the lottery.
> In my area, you have a much better chance of your dog getting shot by a neighbor than the police.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

I couldn't agree more and said something similar in another police/dog shooting thread.

I'm sure there are good people out there who work as police for very little pay but it sure as heck does NOT stack the odds in favor of better results.




jocoyn said:


> Back in the poor years when I delivered paper at night I regularly had a dog try to attack me as I put the paper in the tube. Nobody would do a darned thing and the problem is the tube belonged to the neighbor, not the dog owner who said "I wish you WOULD hit it"
> 
> Ultimately, I did out of sheer frustration after calling my employer, animal control, talking with the owner of the paper tube, and the police. Dog would always limp away very quickly when it saw me drive up after that.
> 
> Not something I am proud of but after some very close calls with that dog and not being allowed to "throw" the paper instead...
> 
> I have not commented on this because have seen a section of the story and don't know the whole thing. I do have concerns about this and think part of the answer is weeding out the police forces, paying them better so you can attract more people to police work (they get paid horribly), doing what we can to make their job less stressful (realizing a lot of LE, Fire, EMS are adrenaline junkies), training them to deal with dogs, and holding them fully accountable for needless discharge of a weapon...but to do these things means we need to spend money. Sometimes penny wise = pound foolish.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Anyone who makes physical threats against anyone involved in this incident is definitely in the wrong! 

I do find it interesting that most people are pointing to the problem I saw with the incident, the police made a choice to escalate when it probably wasn't necessary and that lead to the death of the rottie.




ken k said:


> anybody see this?, hopefully other departments across the country are watching this and take note, they need to change policeys
> “Message to the Community from the Hawthorne Chief of Police” from Hawthorne Police Department, CA : Nixle


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Yup, 4th A Violations.

This is an article written by a 25 year veteran Police officer, definitely worth the read and he sounds pretty frustrated with these situations as well. Additionally he notes that is an all too common occurrence so I think it's time to table the denials that these shootings happen only very rarily.

Highlights many of the concerns others and myself have noted about these situations.

Guess I'm not so far off base after all Swifty.



> Police departments nationwide advise their officers to take whatever measures are necessary to keep themselves safe when facing down a dog. In most of the dog shootings that take place today, *the officer involved is sorely lacking in both common sense and compassion.* Whenever a dog is seen inside a fence, the first thing an officer should do is to use the brain (some police officers still have one of these) and remember a stranger on the property could provoke the dog into barking, snarling, and yes, even attacking. *This does not give the officer a free pass to shoot the dog* before coming onto the property. Especially if the person living there hasn't committed a felony.
> 
> Police officers are also cautioned to use objective reasonableness based on the circumstances at the time they arrive on scene. This means an officer should think through a situation before it gets out of hand and act accordingly. If a dog is behind a fence and may pose a danger, it's common sense not to open the fence. Too many dogs are killed and 20/20 hindsight used to try and explain their actions. Was deadly force REALLY necessary? Most times the answer is no.
> 
> *The Fourth Amendment has now been used in court to back up this logic. The family dog is now considered property, which cannot be seized without cause*. It gives people rights against a search and seizure by police without probable cause. *Since a large majority of these cases involve police being at the wrong address to start with, perhaps a good GPS system would also prevent many of these tragic shootings*


Law Enforcement Today article warns police not to kill family dogs - Greenville Dog | Examiner.com


----------



## Msmaria

Dainerra said:


> but is it really shedding light on the situation? There are hundreds of thousands of police officers on duty at even given moment and millions of dogs. How many dogs are shot out of all of those encounters? I couldn't even begin to do the math but I can tell you that you have a better chance of hitting the lottery.
> In my area, you have a much better chance of your dog getting shot by a neighbor than the police.


Your very lucky to live in a good area. There have been at least 3 dogs shot by police in LA county this month. We would love those lottery odds out here. 
Yes there's no we'd to antagonize cops further I agree. But the point here is that the guy did nothing illegal.


----------



## Msmaria

Dainerra said:


> but is it really shedding light on the situation? There are hundreds of thousands of police officers on duty at even given moment and millions of dogs. How many dogs are shot out of all of those encounters? I couldn't even begin to do the math but I can tell you that you have a better chance of hitting the lottery.
> In my area, you have a much better chance of your dog getting shot by a neighbor than the police.


Your very lucky to live in a good area. There have been at least 3 dogs shot by police in LA county this month. We would love those lottery odds out here.


----------



## Swifty

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Anyone who makes physical threats against anyone involved in this incident is definitely in the wrong!
> 
> I do find it interesting that most people are pointing to the problem I saw with the incident, the police made a choice to escalate when it probably wasn't necessary and that lead to the death of the rottie.


The 'escalation' of handcuffing the guy? Police generally handcuff people who are being deliberately hostile and aggressive toward police. Do you think we should just not arrest people who have dogs?


----------



## Swifty

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Yup, 4th A Violations.
> 
> This is an article written by a 25 year veteran Police officer, definitely worth the read and he sounds pretty frustrated with these situations as well. Additionally he notes that is an all too common occurrence so I think it's time to table the denials that these shootings happen only very rarily.
> 
> Highlights many of the concerns others and myself have noted about these situations.
> 
> Guess I'm not so far off base after all Swifty.


The police coming into your home is a bit different. The Fourth Amendment protects against search and seizure... that really has no bearing on what we're talking about in this thread since the man was not in his home and he was behaving aggressively toward police. A dog behind a fence is not a dog unleashed or uncontrolled.


----------



## Dainerra

Msmaria said:


> Your very lucky to live in a good area. There have been at least 3 dogs shot by police in LA county this month. We would love those lottery odds out here.


good area? not really. The guy across the street sells his prescription meds for cash. The people behind me brew ?? in the woods as well as grow pot. Trailer park across the street that is a transient home for pedophiles, drug dealers, and numerous other undesirables.

LA county has over 10,000 police officers. There are an estimated 
1,131,392 households that own an average of 1.48 dogs. This means there are an estimated 1,674,460 dogs in Los Angeles County. (Pet Ownership and Household Characteristics - Los Angeles) 
So, yeah 3 dogs in a month is a tiny fraction of a percentage. 

Here, my neighbor averages at least a dog a month that he attempts to shoot. Some months there are several. In the time that I've lived here, he has killed and disposed of dozens. So, there is actually a greater danger of MY dog getting shot than yours.


----------



## DaniFani

Ms.Maria, why are you saying he did nothing illegal?? Is there a release or article somewhere saying that? Everything I have read says he was disrupting an active shooting situation, by having his radio blaring, refusing to turn it down, and not staying back by everyone else who was taping....In one place I read he admitted himself he did not comply and turn his radio down like asked....so where are you getting the, "he did nothing illegal" from?


----------



## GatorBytes

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Anyone who makes physical threats against anyone involved in this incident is definitely in the wrong!
> 
> I do find it interesting that most people are pointing to the problem I saw with the incident, the police made a choice to escalate when it probably wasn't necessary and that lead to the death of the rottie.


 
What lead to the death of the rottie was the owners unwillingness to move on and mind his business

He had the *right* to video - fine

It was all about choice.

Stupid dog owner.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

I knew that would be your response and the article discusses these type of incidents in general AND wrt 4th A.

From the article:



> A few officer's have been charged with animal cruelty for acting irresponsibly. Many times this shows not only a lack of common sense, but also an officer who shows no compassion while performing his duties.


Depending on how it plays out in court, this is a possibility as well. And...*you *aint' gonna be the judge!!



Swifty said:


> The police coming into your home is a bit different. The Fourth Amendment protects against search and seizure... that really has no bearing on what we're talking about in this thread since the man was not in his home and he was behaving aggressively toward police. A dog behind a fence is not a dog unleashed or uncontrolled.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Well...A LOT of people disagree with you for that same reasons I do and for the reasons mentioned in the article I linked, written by a PO.

Now we'll see what the courts say, as I'm betting this will go to court.



GatorBytes said:


> What lead to the death of the rottie was the owners unwillingness to move on and mind his business
> 
> He had the *right* to video - fine
> 
> It was all about choice.
> 
> Stupid dog owner.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Gotta say, that's true out in the country. We talked about that in other threads if a stray dog wanders onto someone's property it's a possibility it will be shot.

However, having grown up in rural farm country on a farm I personally never heard of anyone going *onto* a neighbor's property and shooting the dog there.

That's the difference.




Dainerra said:


> good area? not really. The guy across the street sells his prescription meds for cash. The people behind me brew ?? in the woods as well as grow pot. Trailer park across the street that is a transient home for pedophiles, drug dealers, and numerous other undesirables.
> 
> LA county has over 10,000 police officers. There are an estimated
> 1,131,392 households that own an average of 1.48 dogs. This means there are an estimated 1,674,460 dogs in Los Angeles County. (Pet Ownership and Household Characteristics - Los Angeles)
> So, yeah 3 dogs in a month is a tiny fraction of a percentage.
> 
> Here, my neighbor averages at least a dog a month that he attempts to shoot. Some months there are several. In the time that I've lived here, he has killed and disposed of dozens. So, there is actually a greater danger of MY dog getting shot than yours.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

You're judging by your personal threshold, which apparently is low.

If you take the time to read the comments on the link KenK provided you'll see the reasoning, which validates what I was seeing/thinking. Also, many thought he was 'swaggering' around and being obvious about it but not enough to be handcuffed.

Where YOU draw the line is not the same as a lot of other people. 




Swifty said:


> The 'escalation' of handcuffing the guy? Police generally handcuff people who are being deliberately hostile and aggressive toward police. Do you think we should just not arrest people who have dogs?


----------



## Dainerra

True. But i have meet a couple who will entice the dog off the property do that they can shoot it.
Either way, simply put, it's highly unlikely that police will shoot your dog. No matter where you live. You habits, though, can increase your odds of something happening.



Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

btw- just thinking in type here but search and seizure would also apply to one's person (and vehicle)...I believe.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

That's just plain mean.....but most farmers are good folk who want to get along with neighbors and don't do that as a rule, so I think the odds would be really low.

I've always believed in that old Native American saying, show me who you walk with and I will show you who you are. So I'm going to say there is truth in what you say.....

BUT that's what we have constitutional rights for. To be free to have some 'habits'...that others may not agree with... (within certain bounds which can become a legal matter).




Dainerra said:


> True. But i have meet a couple who will entice the dog off the property do that they can shoot it.
> Either way, simply put, it's highly unlikely that police will shoot your dog. No matter where you live. You habits, though, can increase your odds of something happening.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Blanketback

I think the fact that this guy has a history with these particular cops is something that can't be ignored. IMO, that's the reason things got so out of hand. Not knowing the background of those involved, and what their issues are with each other, I'm not even going to try to speculate on why it happened the way it did.


----------



## Swifty

Gwenhwyfair said:


> I knew that would be your response and the article discusses these type of incidents in general AND wrt 4th A.
> 
> From the article:


That quotation mentions officers acting irresponsibly. That would seem to be related to serving warrants to the wrong homes.

How is that article related to anything we're discussing in this thread? This wasn't a case where an officer made a mistake, so I don't see how irresponsibility enters into the discussion.



Gwenhwyfair said:


> Depending on how it plays out in court, this is a possibility as well. And...*you *aint' gonna be the judge!!


It's true that I'm not a judge. It is also true that the video does not indicate any injustice took place. I'm not understanding how you come to the conclusion that handcuffing a hostile and aggressive person who is advancing on police is an 'escalation' that makes officers culpable in the death of the dog.


----------



## Dainerra

have you watched the video that has sound? I saw it on a "news" show that conveniently cut out the portions where the guy was blaring his stereo. It was shot by the guys filming across the street. Even they were saying "he is going to get f***ing shot" and laughing. THAT is how obvious his goading of the cops was to people on the scene.

No one else who was filming was arrested. No one else even had to speak to the cops. He is the one who escalated. In the video, you can even see that he is smirking.


----------



## Swifty

Gwenhwyfair said:


> You're judging by your personal threshold, which apparently is low.
> 
> If you take the time to read the comments on the link KenK provided you'll see the reasoning, which validates what I was seeing/thinking. Also, many thought he was 'swaggering' around and being obvious about it but not enough to be handcuffed.
> 
> Where YOU draw the line is not the same as a lot of other people.


No, I'm judging by what I generally see occur.

When people have attitude problems police treat them differently than people who are polite and cooperative. That's just a fact. The general way this guy was behaving will, more often than not, have a person in handcuffs. I saw nothing unusual in how the officers treated this man.

The comments are made by people who are making decisions using emotion instead of sense. There are many who see fault in whatever police do whether or not the police are in the right.


----------



## Dainerra

Gwenhwyfair said:


> That's just plain mean.....but most farmers are good folk who want to get along with neighbors and don't do that as a rule, so I think the odds would be really low.


actually, no it happens quite a lot that annoying dogs "run away" It's called "shoot, shovel and shut up" THAT is how they get along with the neighbors. The dog goes outside to potty and must have just wandered off. If the owners ask, nope haven't seen your dog. I'll call you if I see him. I hope he comes home soon!


----------



## Swifty

Gwenhwyfair said:


> btw- just thinking in type here but search and seizure would also apply to one's person (and vehicle)...I believe.


The rules are complex, but none apply to the situation at hand. The dog was not in a home or vehicle, was uncontrolled and showed aggression to officers.


----------



## llombardo

Swifty said:


> No, I'm judging by what I generally see occur.
> 
> When people have attitude problems police treat them differently than people who are polite and cooperative. That's just a fact. The general way this guy was behaving will, more often than not, have a person in handcuffs. I saw nothing unusual in how the officers treated this man.
> 
> The comments are made by people who are making decisions using emotion instead of sense. There are many who see fault in whatever police do whether or not the police are in the right.


The police should know the difference and not respond to the attitude. It isn't up to them to give an attitude adjustment. Having an attitude is not breaking the law. If police officers think that they have the right to give an attitude adjustment, then they shouldn't be officers. Good officers will walk away and move on to more important things. I think the police were dead wrong and I'll be the first to tell you if the police do something right. I call it like I see it and emotion doesn't play a role in that.


----------



## llombardo

Swifty said:


> The rules are complex, but none apply to the situation at hand. The dog was not in a home or vehicle, was uncontrolled and showed aggression to officers.


That dog was not uncontrolled. All the police had to do was get their hands off the guy and let him put the dog back in the car. It was a stupid move, from beginning to end for all involved.


----------



## Dainerra

llombardo said:


> That dog was not uncontrolled. All the police had to do was get their hands off the guy and let him put the dog back in the car. It was a stupid move, from beginning to end for all involved.


take the cuffs off and just hope that he didn't take a swing at someone? or decide to flee the scene? Or a thousand other things that he could have done? 

Powered by SelectionLinks​about this ad


----------



## llombardo

Dainerra said:


> have you watched the video that has sound? I saw it on a "news" show that conveniently cut out the portions where the guy was blaring his stereo. It was shot by the guys filming across the street. Even they were saying "he is going to get f***ing shot" and laughing. THAT is how obvious his goading of the cops was to people on the scene.
> 
> No one else who was filming was arrested. No one else even had to speak to the cops. He is the one who escalated. In the video, you can even see that he is smirking.


And the point is? I don't even think the music blaring is reason to approach this guy. Its day time and the car wasn't moving correct? If the car is moving and its that loud, then that is a distraction, but just sitting there? It might be a lack of respect but its not anything else.


----------



## llombardo

Dainerra said:


> take the cuffs off and just hope that he didn't take a swing at someone? or decide to flee the scene? Or a thousand other things that he could have done?
> 
> Powered by SelectionLinks​about this ad


Yep, there are officers everywhere. They have guns and they can shoot him if he decided to run. He runs, they shoot. He sicks the dogs on them, they shoot. They obviously had no problems discharging their weapon. This guy was being questioned for loud music, not killing someone. They played it completely wrong. They could have had one officer walk next to him as he put his dog in the car. This guy wasn't going anywhere. They know him and he knows them.


----------



## Swifty

llombardo said:


> The police should know the difference and not respond to the attitude. It isn't up to them to give an attitude adjustment. Having an attitude is not breaking the law. If police officers think that they have the right to give an attitude adjustment, then they shouldn't be officers. Good officers will walk away and move on to more important things. I think the police were dead wrong and I'll be the first to tell you if the police do something right. I call it like I see it and emotion doesn't play a role in that.


They aren't going to walk away from a guy advancing upon an active crime scene. They were going to talk to him one way or another, the guy's attitude would determine if it's in handcuffs or not.



llombardo said:


> That dog was not uncontrolled. All the police had to do was get their hands off the guy and let him put the dog back in the car. It was a stupid move, from beginning to end for all involved.


It's unrealistic to say the police should let him go. He was being detained for a _justified reason_. It was the _owner's_ responsibility to have secured the dog, the police shouldn't have to release a suspect or risk getting bitten due to the irresponsibility of the owner.


----------



## Swifty

llombardo said:


> And the point is? I don't even think the music blaring is reason to approach this guy. Its day time and the car wasn't moving correct? If the car is moving and its that loud, then that is a distraction, but just sitting there? It might be a lack of respect but its not anything else.


... they were negotiating with a hostage taker a few doors down. Loud music is _absolutely_ a reason to talk to him. The fact that this guy got out of his car and began walking toward officers with a big dog while yelling is just extra incentive to shut him down.


----------



## llombardo

Swifty said:


> It's true that I'm not a judge. It is also true that the video does not indicate any injustice took place. I'm not understanding how you come to the conclusion that handcuffing a hostile and aggressive person who is advancing on police is an 'escalation' that makes officers culpable in the death of the dog.


Where do you see an aggressive and hostile person? I just don't see it. The guy didn't jump in his car and take off. He was man enough to see what the officers wanted. He might have been upset that they detained him, but who wouldn't be? Why did they detain them? They had a very serious matter going on right behind them and they had time to mess with this dude? Seriously? I wouldn't doubt that one of his main concerns was his dog if they arrested him. I'm sure he was very agitated because of this alone.


----------



## Swifty

llombardo said:


> Yep, there are officers everywhere. They have guns and they can shoot him if he decided to run. He runs, they shoot. He sicks the dogs on them, they shoot. They obviously had no problems discharging their weapon. This guy was being questioned for loud music, not killing someone. They played it completely wrong. They could have had one officer walk next to him as he put his dog in the car. This guy wasn't going anywhere. They know him and he knows them.


That's exactly what was going to occur _but the owner failed to secure the dog_.

The dog's death is a direct result of the owner's irresponsibility. The officers were justified in detaining him, so they are not culpable for the dog's death.


----------



## Swifty

llombardo said:


> Where do you see an aggressive and hostile person? I just don't see it. The guy didn't jump in his car and take off. He was man enough to see what the officers wanted. He might have been upset that they detained him, but who wouldn't be? Why did they detain them? They had a very serious matter going on right behind them and they had time to mess with this dude? Seriously? I wouldn't doubt that one of his main concerns was his dog if they arrested him. I'm sure he was very agitated because of this alone.


He was deliberately walking toward officers with a big dog while everyone else was across the street. That's behaving aggressively in an already tense situation. He was yelling at the officers and while I could not understand him I am assuming it was hostile in content given the rest of the situation.

Bringing a big dog along just increases the potential threat level.


----------



## llombardo

Swifty said:


> They aren't going to walk away from a guy advancing upon an active crime scene. They were going to talk to him one way or another, the guy's attitude would determine if it's in handcuffs or not.
> 
> 
> 
> It's unrealistic to say the police should let him go. He was being detained for a _justified reason_. It was the _owner's_ responsibility to have secured the dog, the police shouldn't have to release a suspect or risk getting bitten due to the irresponsibility of the owner.


It was not a justified reason to detain him. If it was that dangerous of a situation they surely would have shut down the whole block and not let anyone in that perimeter and that is a guarantee. The guy was going to the car with his dog, whether the police called out to him before or after, doesn't matter. It was over with and the immediate need to get rid of someone causing problems was gone. Does anyone know what happened with the person that they were trying to catch?


----------



## Swifty

llombardo said:


> It was not a justified reason to detain him. If it was that dangerous of a situation they surely would have shut down the whole block and not let anyone in that perimeter and that is a guarantee. The guy was going to the car with his dog, whether the police called out to him before or after, doesn't matter. It was over with and the immediate need to get rid of someone causing problems was gone. Does anyone know what happened with the person that they were trying to catch?


Once the officers began walking toward him it was inevitable that he would be detained. He very deliberately attracted their attention by behaving unusually and aggressively. They don't let someone behaving that suspiciously just leave (nor should they be expected to), _especially_ around an active crime scene.


----------



## llombardo

Swifty said:


> He was deliberately walking toward officers with a big dog while everyone else was across the street. That's behaving aggressively in an already tense situation. He was yelling at the officers and while I could not understand him I am assuming it was hostile in content given the rest of the situation.
> 
> Bringing a big dog along just increases the potential threat level.


Because he was walking a big dog? So what if it was a small dog, then it wouldn't have been aggressive? That is profiling if I ever seen it. If I seen police activity and it wasn't marked off and I was walking my GSD, I wouldn't even think that my walking toward it would be aggressive, even if I was video taping. I've had my share of arguments with police and I was never arrested, maybe harassed a little, but nothing to bad. This kind of stuff happens all the time in the City of Chicago and I know how the police are there, so what I'm seeing is really no different.


----------



## Dainerra

llombardo said:


> It was not a justified reason to detain him. If it was that dangerous of a situation they surely would have shut down the whole block and not let anyone in that perimeter and that is a guarantee. The guy was going to the car with his dog, whether the police called out to him before or after, doesn't matter. It was over with and the immediate need to get rid of someone causing problems was gone. Does anyone know what happened with the person that they were trying to catch?



this actually makes me laugh. That line of police cars with the officers standing a few feet down? THAT is the perimeter. They were not going to let anyone in that perimeter and that is why they approached him as he walked towards them with a large dog and a camera phone.


----------



## llombardo

Swifty said:


> Once the officers began walking toward him it was inevitable that he would be detained. He very deliberately attracted their attention by behaving unusually and aggressively. They don't let someone behaving that suspiciously just leave (nor should they be expected to), _especially_ around an active crime scene.


Did you read the part about this particular officer knows this guy? Did you read the part about the fact that this guy has a complaint against this officer? You think this all just kinda happened? Not from where I come from. A person that has a complaint against an officer might as well just move.


----------



## Swifty

llombardo said:


> Because he was walking a big dog? So what if it was a small dog, then it wouldn't have been aggressive? That is profiling if I ever seen it. If I seen police activity and it wasn't marked off and I was walking my GSD, I wouldn't even think that my walking toward it would be aggressive, even if I was video taping. I've had my share of arguments with police and I was never arrested, maybe harassed a little, but nothing to bad. This kind of stuff happens all the time in the City of Chicago and I know how the police are there, so what I'm seeing is really no different.


No, with a small dog the owner would have been acting aggressively (since he was still advancing toward officers) but the small dog would not have represented as serious a threat.


----------



## Swifty

llombardo said:


> Did you read the part about this particular officer knows this guy? Did you read the part about the fact that this guy has a complaint against this officer? You think this all just kinda happened? Not from where I come from. A person that has a complaint against an officer might as well just move.


So what? Whether the cop knew him or not, nothing in that video shows one iota of individual prejudice. It shows cops detaining a man for being disruptive, aggressive and hostile near an active crime scene. They were not excessively violent with the man and the man was being genuinely stupid with his behavior.

The death of the dog is the unfortunate consequence of the owner not securing the window or the leash, not due to any malicious intent from police. Unless you think the police orchestrated the entire 'hostage situation' just to kill this man's dog.


----------



## llombardo

Dainerra said:


> this actually makes me laugh. That line of police cars with the officers standing a few feet down? THAT is the perimeter. They were not going to let anyone in that perimeter and that is why they approached him as he walked towards them with a large dog and a camera phone.


They approached him as he was going to his car. Was he leaving or was he just putting the dog away to come back? Who knows? He didn't walk to them. He stood on the corner and held up his camera. Yes he made a point to let them see what he did, but he did it and went to his car. I don't see him approaching anything, he stood back.


----------



## llombardo

Swifty said:


> So what? Whether the cop knew him or not, nothing in that video shows one iota of individual prejudice. It shows cops detaining a man for being disruptive, aggressive and hostile near an active crime scene.


Where in the video do you see that? He is standing on the corner, holds up his phone and takes what I thought was a picture, but maybe a video, starts walking to his car and the police come from almost a half block down. He was no where near the crime scene, he didn't even attempt to walk down the block in the video I seen.


----------



## Swifty

llombardo said:


> They approached him as he was going to his car. Was he leaving or was he just putting the dog away to come back? Who knows? He didn't walk to them. He stood on the corner and held up his camera. Yes he made a point to let them see what he did, but he did it and went to his car. I don't see him approaching anything, he stood back.


He pulled up behind the police, stopped to apparently look, then parked the car. He then got out of the car and began walking toward the cops while yelling and holding his cell phone to record. From what I could tell, he started walking back to his car after cops had started walking over to him. At that point it was far too late for him to just 'be on his way'.

He wasn't standing back with the crowd, the crowd was across the street.


----------



## llombardo

Swifty said:


> The death of the dog is the unfortunate consequence of the owner not securing the window or the leash, not due to any malicious intent from police. Unless you think the police orchestrated the entire 'hostage situation' just to kill this man's dog.


He did not secure the window because the police called him as he was walking to his car. Why would he think there would be any problems? He wasn't do anything wrong. If he thought he was in trouble, I'm sure he would have secured the dog. In no way did this man even need to be talked to. He was not in their way. If he tried getting past where they were standing a half block down, then yes he would be obstructing justice. No they didn't orchestrate the hostage situation, but I am really close to thinking that they did orchestrate the killing of this dog. They had NO reason to approach him as he was going to his car. They should have just let him drive off.


----------



## Swifty

llombardo said:


> Where in the video do you see that? He is standing on the corner, holds up his phone and takes what I thought was a picture, but maybe a video, starts walking to his car and the police come from almost a half block down. He was no where near the crime scene, he didn't even attempt to walk down the block in the video I seen.


There are other videos that start earlier. In the one I saw, you can see him pull up in his car with the windows down, music blaring and his dog's head out the window. He stops the car behind the cop cars for maybe 10 seconds then parks on the corner. Then he exits with his dog and begins walking toward the police (the crowd is across the street behind him).


----------



## Dainerra

llombardo said:


> They approached him as he was going to his car. Was he leaving or was he just putting the dog away to come back? Who knows? He didn't walk to them. He stood on the corner and held up his camera. Yes he made a point to let them see what he did, but he did it and went to his car. I don't see him approaching anything, he stood back.


he walked toward them and they said something. he said something back (and mind you, this is after there was already a disturbance where they asked him several times to turn down the music in his car and he says that he refused to comply). He then takes a large dog out of his car, holds his cell phone aloft and walks toward them until they say something else to him. He turns around and starts walking away. They are saying something and walking after him but he ignores them and keeps walking.


Powered by SelectionLinks​about this ad


----------



## llombardo

Swifty said:


> He pulled up behind the police, stopped to apparently look, then parked the car. He then got out of the car and began walking toward the cops while yelling and holding his cell phone to record. From what I could tell, he started walking back to his car after cops had started walking over to him. At that point it was far too late for him to just 'be on his way'.
> 
> He wasn't standing back with the crowd, the crowd was across the street.


He was standing on that corner and never went any further. They seen what he was doing and said something to him. Its not against the law to video tape. He walked away because he didn't want any problems, it doesn't matter if we agree or disagree if he was already causing problems. I don't care what was said between the guy and the police, he walked away. He was concerned about his dog, he took the time to put the dog in the car before they got to him. It should have ended there.


----------



## Swifty

llombardo said:


> He did not secure the window because the police called him as he was walking to his car. Why would he think there would be any problems? He wasn't do anything wrong. If he thought he was in trouble, I'm sure he would have secured the dog. In no way did this man even need to be talked to. He was not in their way. If he tried getting past where they were standing a half block down, then yes he would be obstructing justice. No they didn't orchestrate the hostage situation, but I am really close to thinking that they did orchestrate the killing of this dog. They had NO reason to approach him as he was going to his car. They should have just let him drive off.


I don't think there's any possibility he didn't know he was in trouble.

He obviously did not anticipate that the dog being killed, but the dog was still his responsibility to secure. His irresponsibility in that regard is what _directly_ led to the dog's death. It would be little different if the dog jumped out while the car was driving on the freeway and was killed. The owner is _completely_ responsible for securing the dog at all times and the unfortunate series of events that followed are a result of his failure to do so.

Given that he had loud music on and the police were negotiating with a bullhorn I have little doubt that he was interfering. Then getting out and yelling at them while advancing on their position is obviously a suspicious move, as well as distracting officers from the crime scene behind them.


----------



## llombardo

Dainerra said:


> he walked toward them and they said something. he said something back (and mind you, this is after there was already a disturbance where they asked him several times to turn down the music in his car and he says that he refused to comply). He then takes a large dog out of his car, holds his cell phone aloft and walks toward them until they say something else to him. He turns around and starts walking away. They are saying something and walking after him but he ignores them and keeps walking.
> 
> 
> Powered by SelectionLinks​about this ad



He took about two steps towards them, but still stayed on that corner. They said something to him, he responded and walked away. If they thought the music was an issue then they should have handled it way before they did. The point was he was leaving and they didn't need to do anything. They could have just let it go, but they didn't. As everyone else keeps saying, they had a serious issue on their hands, but they still took the time to deal with a guy that was leaving for loud music? I don't buy it.


----------



## Swifty

llombardo said:


> He was standing on that corner and never went any further. They seen what he was doing and said something to him. Its not against the law to video tape. He walked away because he didn't want any problems, it doesn't matter if we agree or disagree if he was already causing problems. I don't care what was said between the guy and the police, he walked away. He was concerned about his dog, he took the time to put the dog in the car before they got to him. It should have ended there.


Recording the incident is not part of the issue at all. The crowd behind him was recording as well and none of them had any trouble with police.

If this man didn't want problems then he did the exact wrong things from the moment he drove up. You have an unrealistic expectation that the situation ends when _the owner_ wants it to end. That's not the case. The police don't just let people go who act in ways this man was acting. They just don't, and they should not be expected to either. They wanted to know what he was doing and why he was doing it. Both of those are very reasonable questions given how unusually he was acting.


----------



## llombardo

Swifty said:


> I don't think there's any possibility he didn't know he was in trouble.
> 
> He obviously did not anticipate that the dog being killed, but the dog was still his responsibility to secure. His irresponsibility in that regard is what _directly_ led to the dog's death. It would be little different if the dog jumped out while the car was driving on the freeway and was killed. The owner is _completely_ responsible for securing the dog at all times and the unfortunate series of events that followed are a result of his failure to do so.
> 
> Given that he had loud music on and the police were negotiating with a bullhorn I have little doubt that he was interfering. Then getting out and yelling at them while advancing on their position is obviously a suspicious move, as well as distracting officers from the crime scene behind them.



If this guy did any more then put his dog in the car, the police would have had their guns drawn. He did exactly the same thing anyone else would if they have dealt with the police before. First thought would be, oh he's leaning over, he has a gun. Anyway you look at it, they would have pulled out their weapons, unless they just let him leave. This guy had a matter of seconds to put the dog in the car and you better bet that they were watching where his hands were at all times.


----------



## DaniFani

llombardo,

This isn't *just* an active crime scene....did you read the updates and new information? It was a burglary IN PROGRESS, there were hostages, and the burglar had already fired his gun once. How in the *world*can you say it was okay and *legal* for him to park his car, radio booming, and when the police asked him to turn it down, he said no. HE admits they asked him to turn it down and he didn't....and you are saying he was leaving. After really thinking about it....who cares if he was leaving!? He disobeyed an order, music was too loud and interfering with an active HOSTAGE crime investigation....by saying they should have just let him leave, to me, that's like saying, "yeah, that guy punched someone....but he *was*trying to leave afterwords....they should have just let him." That isn't the way the law works....

EDIT: After reading more of your posts I realize that you are willing to assume too much for us to really debate this, so ignore my response. You want to assume entire scenarios (cops drawing weapons if he was taking too long with the dog at the car), that you just don't KNOW.


----------



## Swifty

llombardo said:


> If this guy did any more then put his dog in the car, the police would have had their guns drawn. He did exactly the same thing anyone else would if they have dealt with the police before. First thought would be, oh he's leaning over, he has a gun. Anyway you look at it, they would have pulled out their weapons, unless they just let him leave. This guy had a matter of seconds to put the dog in the car and you better bet that they were watching where his hands were at all times.


I agree, if the man had kept walking toward them or reached into his pocket suddenly he probably would have been shot. The way the situation was unfolding I would have had a hard time saying that the cops would have been wrong to feel threatened, too. Everything the owner did seemed designed to make the situation worse for himself. The only smart move was to put his dog in the car, but then he _failed to secure him in_ so I can't give him much credit for that.

I take that back, it was also smart to not try to flee.


----------



## DaniFani

Also, it's "they saw what he was doing" not "they seen what he was doing"....pet peeve of mine....sorry


----------



## llombardo

Swifty said:


> Recording the incident is not part of the issue at all. The crowd behind him was recording as well and none of them had any trouble with police.
> 
> If this man didn't want problems then he did the exact wrong things from the moment he drove up. You have an unrealistic expectation that the situation ends when _the owner_ wants it to end. That's not the case. The police don't just let people go who act in ways this man was acting. They just don't, and they should not be expected to either. They wanted to know what he was doing and why he was doing it. Both of those are very reasonable questions given how unusually he was acting.


Its none of their business if he was video taping, unless of course there was something they didn't want to be video taped. It was quite obvious what he was doing. Not to mention again, they KNOW him. It was just not that important what he was doing. I can bet that they didn't know that someone video taped the whole thing, what a bummer for them. I'm sure this man will win any case he might have against this police department.


----------



## Swifty

llombardo said:


> Its none of their business if he was video taping, unless of course there was something they didn't want to be video taped. It was quite obvious what he was doing. Not to mention again, they KNOW him. It was just not that important what he was doing. I can bet that they didn't know that someone video taped the whole thing, what a bummer for them. I'm sure this man will win any case he might have against this police department.


There were other people recording. I don't think the police cared about that in any way, shape, or form. The difference was that this man was not with the rest of the crowd. He was behaving unusually, which almost always attracts unwanted police attention.

If this guy had kept his distance with the actually sane people across the street then I doubt there would have been any issue at all.


----------



## DaniFani

llombardo said:


> He was standing on that corner and never went any further. They seen what he was doing and said something to him. Its not against the law to video tape. He walked away because he didn't want any problems, it doesn't matter if we agree or disagree if he was already causing problems. I don't care what was said between the guy and the police, he walked away. He was concerned about his dog, he took the time to put the dog in the car before they got to him. It should have ended there.


Well, since you're so willing to assume so much here....why not assume it WOULD have just ended right there. He would have been detained for WRONGFULLY refusing to turn his music down and stop interfering with the hostage situation....but since his dog wasn't properly secured, it didn't end there....


----------



## Courtney

I think the cops know in this day & age anybody can be recording them. Departments were smart to put dash cameras in their cruisers. Heck, I can be video taped when I'm out & about, any of us. Welcome to big brother.


----------



## llombardo

DaniFani said:


> llombardo,
> 
> This isn't *just* an active crime scene....did you read the updates and new information? It was a burglary IN PROGRESS, there were hostages, and the burglar had already fired his gun once. How in the *world*can you say it was okay and *legal* for him to park his car, radio booming, and when the police asked him to turn it down, he said no. HE admits they asked him to turn it down and he didn't....and you are saying he was leaving. After really thinking about it....who cares if he was leaving!? He disobeyed an order, music was too loud and interfering with an active HOSTAGE crime investigation....by saying they should have just let him leave, to me, that's like saying, "yeah, that guy punched someone....but he *was*trying to leave afterwords....they should have just let him." That isn't the way the law works....
> 
> EDIT: After reading more of your posts I realize that you are willing to assume too much for us to really debate this, so ignore my response. You want to assume entire scenarios (cops drawing weapons if he was taking too long with the dog at the car), that you just don't KNOW.


Did he know what was going on? Like I said if it was that serious, the police would have had the whole block blocked off and it would have been corner to corner. People disobey orders all the time, it is at the discretion of the police on how they will handle it. I don't assume anything. I have seen these kind of things play out over and over again. It is the reason that I didn't become a police officer. I can bet that they would have assumed that he had a weapon, especially in that area. It would be very naive to think otherwise. I have seen police do both good and bad things and if I thought they were right I would say it, even with the dog getting shot. They chose to be police officers in this area and along with that comes the lack of respect and ignorance related to that area. If that can't learn to know when its not worth the paperwork and to walk away, they need to be in a different area altogether.


----------



## DaniFani

llombardo said:


> Its none of their business if he was video taping, unless of course there was something they didn't want to be video taped. It was quite obvious what he was doing. Not to mention again, they KNOW him. It was just not that important what he was doing. I can bet that they didn't know that someone video taped the whole thing, what a bummer for them. *I'm sure this man will win any case he might have against this police department.*


That's great that you are so sure of it....however, no matter HOW the courts vote, most people's POV on the "losing" side will cry, "the verdict was that way because of the media" or "the judge decided that because he's in bed with the department" etc...so no one will EVER be happy or concede to being right or wrong....oh well....I think I've said my piece enough around this situation, and it's starting to look like a lot are debating without the full knowledge of the situation now...which brings everyone back to square one, and everyone needs to cyclically give all their points again....good grief lol


----------



## llombardo

DaniFani said:


> Well, since you're so willing to assume so much here....why not assume it WOULD have just ended right there. He would have been detained for WRONGFULLY refusing to turn his music down and stop interfering with the hostage situation....but since his dog wasn't properly secured, it didn't end there....


Has anyone seen the story about the active case the police were working on at this time? Was it a hostage situation, a robbery? Where is that story at?


----------



## DaniFani

llombardo said:


> Did he know what was going on? Like I said if it was that serious, the police would have had the whole block blocked off and it would have been corner to corner. People disobey orders all the time, it is at the discretion of the police on how they will handle it. *I don't assume anything*. I have seen these kind of things play out over and over again. It is the reason that I didn't become a police officer. *I can bet that they would have assumed that he had a weapon*, especially in that area. It would be very naive to think otherwise. I have seen police do both good and bad things and if I thought they were right I would say it, even with the dog getting shot. They chose to be police officers in this area and along with that comes the lack of respect and ignorance related to that area. If that can't learn to know when its not worth the paperwork and to walk away, they need to be in a different area altogether.


hmmm....me thinks this is a contradiction.....


----------



## llombardo

DaniFani said:


> That's great that you are so sure of it....however, no matter HOW the courts vote, most people's POV on the "losing" side will cry, "the verdict was that way because of the media" or "the judge decided that because he's in bed with the department" etc...so no one will EVER be happy or concede to being right or wrong....oh well....I think I've said my piece enough around this situation, and it's starting to look like a lot are debating without the full knowledge of the situation now...which brings everyone back to square one, and everyone needs to cyclically give all their points again....good grief lol


The police officer already has already been named in a pretty big lawsuit, the police officer also is on the complaint that this same man made. It doesn't look good for this officer. I think everyone has knowledge of what happened and everyone just feels differently. I wouldn't feel differently if I was a cop or married to one, I just see what I see


----------



## DaniFani

"Leon Rosby, 52, was filming the ongoing scene of an armed robbery in his neighborhood" from the article several pages back....the armed robber had also discharged his weapon already.....So the officer was involved with previous law suits...the dog owner also has a criminal history...I would ASSUME you would be willing to dismiss his history in debating this case....but would hypocritically make sure the police officer's history was included....almost every single one of your responses on this thread has at LEAST one assumption in it.


----------



## llombardo

DaniFani said:


> hmmm....me thinks this is a contradiction.....


Just because I don't assume doesn't mean that they don't. Don't see a contradiction with that. But I will say that if I was a officer in that area and I was thinking that this guy was a trouble maker, then I MIGHT assume that there is more trouble coming. This isn't a bad thing, because it is there safety at stake. So IMO, I think its okay for them to assume that these things can happen, it keeps them on their toes.


----------



## TrickyShepherd

This thread has gotten ridiculous. It's gone from a sad story and me tearing up... to now laughing at these responses. I still feel immense sorrow for the dog, though.... Only the dog. I look forward to seeing what the courts say. This is why you go to college for a many many years to do anything in Law (Judges, Lawyers, etc)..... there's way more to it than 99% of the general public can even fathom.


----------



## DaniFani

llombardo said:


> The police officer already has already been named in a pretty big lawsuit, the police officer also is on the complaint that this same man made. It doesn't look good for this officer. *I think everyone has knowledge of what happened and everyone just feels differently. I wouldn't feel differently if I was a cop or married to one, I just see what I see*


Another contradiction, you say that everyone just feels differently, but then say that even if you were a cop or married to one you wouldn't change your mind...this implies that either of those people aren't allowed or capable (in your opinion) to "see what they see."


----------



## llombardo

DaniFani said:


> ....So the officer was involved with previous law suits...the dog owner also has a criminal history...I would ASSUME you would be willing to dismiss his history in debating this case....but would hypocritically make sure the police officer's history was included....



Yes I would to a point. And I would heavily consider the officers versus the guys only because..an officer shouldn't have this kind of history period. That history states what kind of officer he is and what should not be on the streets. I would take into consideration the guys history, but that would really have nothing to do with loud music and a video tape. If there was a gun involved and the guy had a history of violence, then that would play a bigger role by all means.


----------



## DaniFani

TrickyShepherd said:


> This thread has gotten ridiculous. It's gone from a sad story and me tearing up... to now laughing at these responses. I still feel immense sorrow for the dog, though.... Only the dog. I look forward to seeing what the courts say. This is why you go to college for a many many years to do anything in Law (Judges, Lawyers, etc)..... there's way more to it than 99% of the general public can even fathom.


Agreed, you've made such great points (imo) in this thread, tricky. Thank you. And with that, I'm out!


----------



## llombardo

DaniFani said:


> Another contradiction, you say that everyone just feels differently, but then say that even if you were a cop or married to one you wouldn't change your mind...this implies that either of those people aren't allowed or capable (in your opinion) to "see what they see."


No, I meant that how I feel wouldn't change in those cases. For example, if I was married to a police officer, I wouldn't necessarily side with the police in all cases. This is where I couldn't be a police officer comes into play, because I don't agree with them all the time and really to be a police officer, you have to stand behind each other no matter what.


----------



## DaniFani

llombardo said:


> No, I meant that how I feel wouldn't change in those cases. For example, if I was married to a police officer, I wouldn't necessarily side with the police in all cases. This is where I couldn't be a police officer comes into play, because I don't agree with them all the time and really *to be a police officer, you have to stand behind each other no matter what.*


Sorry...one more thing....absolutely NOT to the bolded...another assumption on your part....many many police speak out against other's stupid decisions (the guy who shot the GSD on a wrong-address warrant, for example). It's just many believe nothing was done wrong or handled wrong in THIS case(why it will probably go to court)... an active shooting situation, where a man refused to stop blasting his music and interfering with *the active burglary/shooting*...and you probably should have known that information before you started passing judgements and debating....


----------



## llombardo

I don't want to argue..I like all of you guys Its a forum, we will always have different opinions. The bottom line is that the dog is dead. The only one that suffered was that dog. And I do believe he suffered


----------



## Courtney

llombardo said:


> No, I meant that how I feel wouldn't change in those cases. For example, if I was married to a police officer, I wouldn't necessarily side with the police in all cases. This is where I couldn't be a police officer comes into play, because I don't agree with them all the time and really to be a police officer, you have to stand behind each other no matter what.


You are mistaken by thinking if a police officer sees unethical behavior of another officer they do not follow their chain of command to report the incident. Are there some that turn a blind eye? Of course. 

To say they stick together no matter what is untrue.


----------



## llombardo

DaniFani said:


> Sorry...one more thing....absolutely NOT to the bolded...another assumption on your part....many many police speak out against other's stupid decisions (the guy who shot the GSD on a wrong-address warrant, for example). It's just many believe nothing was done wrong or handled wrong in THIS case(why it will probably go to court)... an active shooting situation, where a man refused to stop blasting his music and interfering with *the active burglary/shooting*...and you probably should have known that information before you started passing judgements and debating....


How can you say what I say is an assumption? Just because you think something else? Or you say its not true? Last time I checked everyone is entitled to an opinion. I can very well think what your saying is an assumption because I don't see it or know of it. Where I am from, this is a known fact.... Speaking out gets you nowhere and fast. It is NOT an assumption. As a matter of a fact(I believe on the same thread you mentioned) a ex police officer stated exactly what I said(police stick together) and also went on to say that is why he/she was not an officer anymore. Maybe its like that where you are at and that is how it should be 100%. Areas that have officers that stand up and speak what they feel probably are way better off. I did know there was a situation before I started passing judgements and I still feel that the situation could have been handled completely different. By what I am understanding, the crime rate is pretty high in this area and police deal with people like this guy all the time. The one thing I'm sure of is that they probably didn't expect it to end the way it did. No one did.


----------



## llombardo

Courtney said:


> You are mistaken by thinking if a police officer sees unethical behavior of another officer they do not follow their chain of command to report the incident. Are there some that turn a blind eye? Of course.
> 
> To say they stick together no matter what is untrue.



If they turn a blind eye, then they are no better then the officer that they are turning a blind eye to. If they don't say anything, then they are in all reality sticking/standing behind each other. They might not like it, but they do it, because they have family to support and a house to pay for.


----------



## Courtney

I give up....


----------



## DaniFani

Just adding some more information. I'm on another community "reddit" and there are several people stating that witnesses have come forward saying that the dog owner, when asked to turn down his radio because there was an active crime happening he yelled, "it's my F&&/!;& radio!" Then he preceded over to the cops yelling, "how come there aren't any black cops!?" IMO, if I can find the articles and these quotes are correct, this man came looking for a confrontation with police and got just that. Unfortunately the dog paid the price for the need for a confrontation.

There are plenty of places and avenues to "protest" police, an active hostage crime scene is not one of them....IMHO. Nor is it ALLOWED at an active hostage or crime scene.

Edit: oh and another witness stated that when asked to turn the radio down he actually turned it up. ....


----------



## JakodaCD OA

I'm not going to give my opinion on the right or wrong of anyone involved.

I would like to know however, exactly what the verbal exchange was between this guy and the cops before I would form an opinion.

In the end, I feel really bad for the dog


----------



## jafo220

Wow this thread blew up!

I watched the footage on the news from the point where the guy was walking back to his car. It just had a strange feeling to it. Number one, why did this guy even have his dog in a situation like that? Any self respecting human that owns a dog would not put his dog in that position. Hey, the cop did what he had to do. Could the cops handled it differently? Sure, maybe, maybe not. The situation dictates how the cops react to agression from bystanders. This guy clearly crossed a line and new it. I think he tried to protect his dog the best he could but when leaving the windows down you would have to think your dog isn't staying put when strangers put thier hands on you. Dogs comming out and intend on attacking. 

I can say, this might be a good example of why people that own big potentialy deadly dogs need to go through a few obedience courses guided by a certified instructor, not your local corner wanna be trainer. Had this dog been trained, it would have increased his chances of survival and if he had a different owner also. 

To me, it's clear that the dog owner in my opinion was 100% responsible for his dogs killing. The dog as well as the owner should have never been in this situation.


----------



## selzer

I have tried to read all the responses, but I haven't noticed this.

It appears that the police waited until the scene was secure and the gunman was in custody before they decided to deal with the guy with the dog. 

They told the guy to put the dog in the car and the guy did and then he walked back to them and pretty much complied with them. 

The guy owned the dog for 3 years. Maybe it never jumped out of the window before, whether driving or when parked. It is CA and leaving the windows totally up would have probably roasted the dog. It may not have occurred to him that there would be any reason for the dog to try and jump out. 

I have been talked to by cops hundreds of times and have never once been handcuffed. Just because cops want to say something to does not mean they will put you in cuffs. It may be different in that neighborhood, but I would have expected the cops to read me the riot act for not turning down the music, maybe write him a ticket, but otherwise, I really don't think that there was any reason for the guy to put put in handcuffs. 

If there was a guy shooting in the building, maybe the smart people were recording from across the street because they did not trust that the bullets wouldn't fly at them. At no time did the cops tell him to stay on the other side of the street. 

Since the serious altercation was contained, the officers could have told the man to secure the dog, or even told the man that they are going to arrest him, so they want for him to secure the dog until Animal Control could come and get him, unless he has a better idea, a family member that can come and get the dog. 

The assailant was under arrest, there was no reason for them to be rushing this. They knew they were going to cuff the guy, the guy did not. The dog was a 130 pound rottweiler that was in good health and condition, obviously well-cared for, meaning that the guy would most likely have ensured the dog's safety rather than sicking him on the officers. 

There was no reason for that dog to die like that. I think the fact that the man had a history with the police does play into this and that can be just as much a negative on the side of the officers involved, than on the side of the man.


----------



## sparra

llombardo said:


> Yep, there are officers everywhere. They have guns and they can shoot him if he decided to run. He runs, they shoot. He sicks the dogs on them, they shoot. They obviously had no problems discharging their weapon. This guy was being questioned for loud music, not killing someone. They played it completely wrong. They could have had one officer walk next to him as he put his dog in the car. This guy wasn't going anywhere. They know him and he knows them.


Why would anyone want to be a cop in the United States of America when you have people who think like this.

Instead of shooting a dog lets shoot a person instead.
Can't speak from experience BUT if I was a cop I would get over shooting a dog easier than shooting a person.....:crazy:


----------



## boomer11

hahaha llombardo's posts makes me laugh. i would bet almost anything you live in a secluded upper class neighborhood and are VERY sheltered. people like you are the reason this country always think sue sue sue over everything


----------



## Liesje

llombardo said:


> The police should know the difference and not respond to the attitude. It isn't up to them to give an attitude adjustment. Having an attitude is not breaking the law. If police officers think that they have the right to give an attitude adjustment, then they shouldn't be officers. Good officers will walk away and move on to more important things. I think the police were dead wrong and I'll be the first to tell you if the police do something right. I call it like I see it and emotion doesn't play a role in that.


Cops are not psychologists or future-seers. Hindsight is 20/20. I'm just commenting on the above comments (not on what really happened here). I have relatives in law enforcement and from their stories know that an "attitude" can instantly escalate into watching your partner get shot point blank. I personally assume that police will err on the side of caution when dealing with someone being agitated and hostile.


----------



## llombardo

boomer11 said:


> hahaha llombardo's posts makes me laugh. i would bet almost anything you live in a secluded upper class neighborhood and are VERY sheltered. people like you are the reason this country always think sue sue sue over everything


That is so funny that you think that...Well you bet wrong. Probably one of the worst bets you have ever made... Born and raised in the City of Chicago. Not far from the west side of the city. Do some research. I've seen bullets whiz past my head more then once, I've seen police officers beat up innocent people, I have seen cops issue fake tickets to people they don't like, I've seen officers avoid shootings, because their goal is to go home alive. I've seen neighborhoods with people, like both the guy and the cops we are discussing in the real world. Have you? I'm not black, I am a white female that has seen more then most people probably have. I don't pretend I'm blind and because of what I have saw I'm very hesitant to trust most police officers. I am certainly not sheltered. Where I come from, the police are investigating one murder and another one happens a half a block down. The police are not respected and after many years of watching the stuff they do, I ALMOST understand it. I love hearing good stories about police and I would love to see a complete do over of the whole system with all new officers to get rid of the bad, because the number of bad officers seems to always be rising. The police in the City of Chicago do not have time to question or even arrest someone for loud music. They let it go, because a murder or a rape is more important and they have learned how to pick there battles and walk away. I give all the credit in the world to the ones that stay clean and do there job the way they are suppose to. AND I don't know of anyone that has sued anyone in my life. I certainly do not know of anyone that had it in them to sue any police officers, because if you don't have solid proof like video, you aren't going to win. Heck, chances are that you won't even win with solid evidence. You can't see as much as I have and not see things for what they are. I can't pretend that I think the police were right in this situation and I refuse to. If I truly thought they were, I would say they were. I have nothing against police officers and I give the ones that do the job the right way lots of credit. Anything else that you would like to bet on?


----------



## boomer11

lol ok im sorry. that was pretty judgemental. you win. would you like my dog? hes pretty cute


----------



## llombardo

boomer11 said:


> lol ok im sorry. that was pretty judgemental. you win. would you like my dog? hes pretty cute


Here is an example of what kind of stuff happens here..I don't know this woman personally, but I do know of things like this that have happened. It is well known in the city of Chicago that the Chicago Police have a Code of Silence, which is suppose to end? If its here, where else is it? Not one man helped her? They want to fight it because he was off duty, but isn't a police officer always "on duty"? Just sickening.

Chicago Police Found Guilty of Covering Up Bartender Beating - ABC News


----------



## boomer11

i understand there are incidents of bad police work. there are stories of cops shooting dogs that make my blood boil. but you cant just post random cases because they have nothing to do with THIS case. in this case alone, the police are far from wrong for shooting the dog. dogs have been shot for much less than this. this dog actually lunged. most of the stories i end up angry at the cops. but in this story i end up angry at the owner and i have no idea how anyone can defend such a selfish arrogant guy who's actions got his dog killed.


----------



## Swifty

selzer said:


> The guy owned the dog for 3 years. Maybe it never jumped out of the window before, whether driving or when parked. It is CA and leaving the windows totally up would have probably roasted the dog. It may not have occurred to him that there would be any reason for the dog to try and jump out.


I think this is probably exactly true.

The shooting was an unintended and unforeseen tragedy. However, the owner is still responsible for making sure his dog is restrained _at all times_. He was sloppy about it and that's understandable because the car was parked, but it is still ultimately his responsibility for failing in safety precautions.


----------



## Swifty

Truthfully, all the debate about whether the guy is rightly or wrongly detained is a sideshow. 

Nearly *anything* and *everything* that happens to that dog, or that dog does to others, is the owners fault and responsibility from the moment it jumps out of that window because that dog should never have been able to jump out of that window. If he had quietly gone across the street to film where the sane people were standing, the dog's death would still be his fault. If he had begun balancing his checkbook and paid no attention to the crimescene, the dog's death would be his fault. If he had taken out an assault rifle and gunned down the bystanders, the dog's death would be his fault. There are few scenarios where the dog's death is not the owners fault. The police did what they had to do and what is expected of them.


----------



## llombardo

This law should be passed in all states. This was voted on and every person voting agreed, not one person voted no. Look at that beautiful GSD that was shot

Police Training For Dog Encounters Becomes Law CBS Denver


----------



## Swifty

llombardo said:


> This law should be passed in all states. This was voted on and every person voting agreed, not one person voted no. Look at that beautiful GSD that was shot
> 
> Police Training For Dog Encounters Becomes Law CBS Denver


That wouldn't have helped here, I think. That law is for police responding to a home where a person, who is not a suspect, can control or remove their dog. In our situation the police were not called to a home without a suspect, and the owner (the suspect) failed to secure his dog as ordered (though he thought he had) which led to the confrontation.


----------



## llombardo

Swifty said:


> That wouldn't have helped here, I think. That law is for police responding to a home where a person, who is not a suspect, can control or remove their dog. In our situation the police were not called to a home without a suspect, and the owner (the suspect) failed to secure his dog as ordered (though he thought he had) which led to the confrontation.


There was no reason for this guy to be a suspect. The scene was secure from what I understand and therefore he wasn't obstructing anything. Only after the scene was secure did the officers approach him. Is that correct?


----------



## Swifty

llombardo said:


> There was no reason for this guy to be a suspect. The scene was secure from what I understand and therefore he wasn't obstructing anything. Only after the scene was secure did the officers approach him. Is that correct?


If that is true (and I don't really know), then he was still obstructing since his bad behavior occurred before that point. Whether or not you or I agree with this man being detained, the law you cited would have had no effect upon the encounter. Nearly everything that happens to or with that dog is the owners fault since he failed to secure him in the car. Even if the cops were coming over to give him a warning, the dog's death was the owner's fault since the officers can be expected to shoot the dog before they risk being bitten.

The only difference is that the owner would have had an opportunity to grab the dog before the dog got near police. At the end of the day, whether or not that dog jumped out of the car was completely the responsibility of the owner.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

I think of it differently, we are more (on this board) like a jury and jury is comprised of people like us, who are not trained in the law. Ultimately in many cases the decision rests on the lay people of the jury.

So while I don't agree with everyone I do think many people have made good points.



TrickyShepherd said:


> This thread has gotten ridiculous. It's gone from a sad story and me tearing up... to now laughing at these responses. I still feel immense sorrow for the dog, though.... Only the dog. I look forward to seeing what the courts say. This is why you go to college for a many many years to do anything in Law (Judges, Lawyers, etc)..... there's way more to it than 99% of the general public can even fathom.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

The article refers to 'thinking first' not just shooting and whether we agree with if Rosby was in the wrong or not, the question remains could the officers have done something differently wrt the dog specifically.

That is pertinent also. 

I came to the conclusion the same way many others (again, please read kenk's link, comments at the bottom) based I what I see in the video the police escalated when there wasn't really a clear need too. There's many different ways they could have prevented this. You've drawn the line at Rosby being in the wrong probably at the very first few moments of what you saw in the video because he DID have an attitude. My and many others threshold is lower in that we can see he was pushing it but there aren't any clear reasons that **we can see in the video** where he actually crossed a line. For instance, if he had started hurling rocks at the police I would say he went over the line. If he walked up to an officer and got into his face really yelling at him, then he crossed the line. He pushed it but I many others see it the same way, he didn't push it THAT far. 

You see it differently, you see him crossing the line probably from the first few seconds of the video where he was so close to the rear of the patrol cars. So your mind was most likely made up fairly quickly (?? correct me if I'm wrong in that....)

Also, I've said earlier, I'm not the judge either and my observations may prove to be incorrect after all the facts come out in court, not to mention specific laws of Cali and or the county where this incident happened.

Really it's going to be up to the courts and possibly a jury to decide.

(btw it's interesting to note that "who" escalated is the turning point in the Martin/Zimmerman case)






Swifty said:


> That quotation mentions officers acting irresponsibly. That would seem to be related to serving warrants to the wrong homes.
> 
> How is that article related to anything we're discussing in this thread? This wasn't a case where an officer made a mistake, so I don't see how irresponsibility enters into the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> It's true that I'm not a judge. It is also true that the video does not indicate any injustice took place. I'm not understanding how you come to the conclusion that handcuffing a hostile and aggressive person who is advancing on police is an 'escalation' that makes officers culpable in the death of the dog.


----------



## Swifty

Gwenhwyfair said:


> The article refers to 'thinking first' not just shooting and whether we agree with if Rosby was in the wrong or not, the question remains could the officers have done something differently wrt to the dog specifically.
> 
> That is pertinent also.
> 
> I came to the conclusion the same way many others (again, please read kenk's link, comments at the bottom) based I what I see in the video the police escalated when there wasn't really a clear need too.


Yes I read the comments. Unfortunately the death of an innocent dog colors the emotions of many people into believing the police are in the wrong. This is an incorrect conclusion. The police _did_ 'think first'. They asked the owner to secure the dog, which the dog owner failed to do (though he thought he did).




Gwenhwyfair said:


> There's many different ways they could have prevented this. You've drawn the line at Rosby being in the wrong probably at the very first few moments of what you saw in the video because he DID have an attitude.


No, his attitude has nothing to do whether he is at fault with the dog's death. His attitude is only important when it comes to whether the police handcuff him. His interaction with police determined whether he could have grabbed the dog to prevent it from getting close to police because the police can be _expected_ to shoot the dog before they risk being bitten. The owner would still be _completely in the wrong_ but he would at least have an opportunity to correct his failure. That unfortunately was not possible since he had a bad attitude and ended up in handcuffs.

He is responsible for the dog's death because he _failed to secure the dog in the car_. Nearly anything and everything that happens after the dog jumps out of the window is the owners fault. If the dog bites a bystander, it's the owner's fault. If the dog gets run over, it's the owner's fault. If the dog gets shot for snapping at police, it's the owner's fault. I don't care whether the owner did everything else right: whether the owner quietly went over to watch from the crowd or was balancing his checkbook, his failure to belt his dog in the car or roll up the window is _entirely his fault_.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Yeah, I'm going to disagree with you, of course. 

The way they handled the dog was stupid, of course the dog took that as an act of aggression when the PO tried to grab him. Even my mild mannered Smitty dog wouldn't tolerate a stranger just grabbing at him like that.

If the police hadn't called Rosby over and handcuffed and started escalating the situation this would not be a point of discussion at all.

There are enough moments in the video that point to the police being in the wrong.

...and I'm going to assume you're human too   so trying to dismiss reasonable points with the "emotional argument" is a double edged sword! LOL!

I'm not changing my mind until some new evidence is presented in the media or through a court case to show that my reasoning is incorrect.






Swifty said:


> Yes I read the comments. Unfortunately the death of an innocent dog colors the emotions of many people into believing the police are in the wrong. This is an incorrect conclusion. The police _did_ 'think first'. They asked the owner to secure the dog, which the dog owner failed to do (though he thought he did).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, his attitude has nothing to do whether he is at fault with the dog's death. His attitude is only important when it comes to whether the police handcuff him.
> 
> He is responsible for the dog's death because he _failed to secure the dog in the car_. Nearly anything and everything that happens after the dog jumps out of the window is the owners fault. If the dog bites a bystander, it's the owner's fault. If the dog gets run over, it's the owner's fault. If the dog gets shot for snapping at police, it's the owner's fault. I don't care whether the owner did everything else right: whether the owner quietly went over to watch from the crowd or was balancing his checkbook, his failure to belt his dog in the car or roll up the window is _entirely his fault_.


----------



## Swifty

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Yeah, I'm going to disagree with you, of course.


There are three parties involved: The police, the owner, and the dog. The dog is not held responsible for it's own actions, and the police responded in a way that is expected with an unknown dog that has shown aggression. If the owner had used reasonable methods to secure the dog then he would not be at fault either. However, the owner failed to live up to his responsibility to secure the dog which places culpability for it's death upon him.

The best you could hope for is that the owner and police share responsibility for the incident, which is only possible if the police did not react in a justified way to the dog snapping at them. I don't think you have any logical support for your position since I cannot see how it can be expected for the police to risk being bitten to control an unknown dog.



Gwenhwyfair said:


> The way they handled the dog was stupid, of course the dog took that as an act of aggression when the PO tried to grab him. Even my mild mannered Smitty dog wouldn't tolerate a stranger just grabbing at him like that.


There was no other realistic option, unless they simply shoot the dog first. The police tried to use non-lethal methods of control _first_, which is exactly what you wanted them to do.



Gwenhwyfair said:


> If the police hadn't called Rosby over and handcuffed and started escalating the situation this would not be a point of discussion at all.


You _cannot reasonably_ hinge the questioning of a suspect on whether or not they have a dog. That is absolutely absurd. The police do not let people go because they have a dog. Whether or not you and I _agree_ that he _should_ have been detained is irrelevant to who was culpable in the dog's death, it only has relevance on events that could have happened in an alternate world. Using hindsight is not a justified reasoning method: you would have to disagree that the actions of police were reasonable _after the dog ran up to them_.


----------



## GatorBytes

Gwenhwyfair said:


> If the police hadn't called Rosby over and handcuffed and started escalating the situation this would not be a point of discussion at all.


Who says the police called him over? Watching you could also read it this way as you cannot hear any verbal.

he eggs them on
they turn towards him
he turns and scrambles to put his dog in the car and as he is fumbling they have their hands on their weapons as they approach 
he promptly with his chest puffed out goes BACK to them and turns around (before they even take out the cuffs) as though saying go ahead and cuff me - and they did.

I think he could have left, but he knew he was being filmed, so did the police - the police did not initiate this incident....the dog owner did. He paid with his dogs life


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

You're drawing the escalation line at a later point then me. That's where I think this difference of opinion between many of us boils down to.

In one of the links, where Rosby was interviewed he stated he recognized one of the POs as the officer he had filed a suit against, tried to leave but the officer recognized him as well (and it went downhill from there). So that's the testimony of Rosby. 

If he is lying then it will be him against the PO in court.

Going by the evidence that you and I can see, Rosby's story matches what I (and many others) see in the video BEFORE he was hand cuffed.

Also - I'm not saying it's iron clad...but your POV isn't iron clad evidence either....

So we'll see how it plays out in court.



GatorBytes said:


> Who says the police called him over? Watching you could also read it this way as you cannot hear any verbal.
> 
> he eggs them on
> they turn towards him
> he turns and scrambles to put his dog in the car and as he is fumbling they have their hands on their weapons as they approach
> he promptly with his chest puffed out goes BACK to them and turns around (before they even take out the cuffs) as though saying go ahead and cuff me - and they did.
> 
> I think he could have left, but he knew he was being filmed, so did the police - the police did not initiate this incident....the dog owner did. He paid with his dogs life


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Your post should be prefaced with in *your* judgement.

You're pretty good at hammering at what *you think* is right, throwing in deflections and repeated protestations but my previous comment stands. I know this meme of keep repeating something and it will become true is an internet debating technique but it doesn't work on me.

Unless other evidence beyond that which we have access to here on this forum comes to light I think your POV is incorrect.





Swifty said:


> There are three parties involved: The police, the owner, and the dog. The dog is not held responsible for it's own actions, and the police responded in a way that is expected with an unknown dog that has shown aggression. If the owner had used reasonable methods to secure the dog then he would not be at fault either. However, the owner failed to live up to his responsibility to secure the dog which places culpability for it's death upon him.
> 
> The best you could hope for is that the owner and police share responsibility for the incident, which is only possible if the police did not react in a justified way to the dog snapping at them. I don't think you have any logical support for your position since I cannot see how it can be expected for the police to risk being bitten to control an unknown dog.
> 
> 
> 
> There was no other realistic option, unless they simply shoot the dog first. The police tried to use non-lethal methods of control _first_, which is exactly what you wanted them to do.
> 
> 
> 
> You _cannot reasonably_ hinge the questioning of a suspect on whether or not they have a dog. That is absolutely absurd. The police do not let people go because they have a dog. Whether or not you and I _agree_ that he _should_ have been detained is irrelevant to who was culpable in the dog's death, it only has relevance on events that could have happened in an alternate world. Using hindsight is not a justified reasoning method: you would have to disagree that the actions of police were reasonable _after the dog ran up to them_.


----------



## llombardo

Swifty said:


> If that is true (and I don't really know), then he was still obstructing since his bad behavior occurred before that point. Whether or not you or I agree with this man being detained, the law you cited would have had no effect upon the encounter. Nearly everything that happens to or with that dog is the owners fault since he failed to secure him in the car. Even if the cops were coming over to give him a warning, the dog's death was the owner's fault since the officers can be expected to shoot the dog before they risk being bitten.
> 
> The only difference is that the owner would have had an opportunity to grab the dog before the dog got near police. At the end of the day, whether or not that dog jumped out of the car was completely the responsibility of the owner.



What do you think would have happened if the guy reached over in the car to roll up the windows? Or tried getting in the car to roll them up? Do you think those officers would have still just walked up to the car or rushed the car, with a Rott in the car and windows open? As someone else stated the officers already had their hands on their weapons as they approached him. IMO the guy did the right thing, I only say this because a police officers safety is first and I understand that and first and foremost they are watching for someone that might have a weapon. If I was an officer and came across this guy, I would seriously think about the possibility that he might have a gun. If he took to long in that car and leaned over, that would strengthen what I already thought. What would they have done if the owner did not put the dog in the car? They approach him and the dog lunges? I have a feeling it would have been the same end result. If the cops did not touch the owner and were only going to issue the warning, I seriously doubt the dog would have reacted and IF he did, the owner would have had the ability to grab the dog. It all boils down to the officer walking right up to the guy and handcuffing him immediately. They seen he had a Rott, they know he didn't roll the windows up...they aren't stupid.


----------



## llombardo

Gwenhwyfair said:


> I think of it differently, we are more (on this board) like a jury and jury is comprised of people like us, who are not trained in the law. Ultimately in many cases the decision rests on the lay people of the jury.
> 
> So while I don't agree with everyone I do think many people have made good points.


I like the way you think


----------



## DaniFani

Gwenhwyfair said:


> You're drawing the escalation line at a later point then me. That's where I think this difference of opinion between many of us boils down to.
> 
> In one of the links, where Rosby was interviewed he stated he recognized one of the POs as the officer he had filed a suit against, tried to leave but the officer recognized him as well (and it went downhill from there). So that's the testimony of Rosby.
> 
> If he is lying then it will be him against the PO in court.
> 
> Going by the evidence that you and I can see, Rosby's story matches what I (and many others) see in the video BEFORE he was hand cuffed.
> 
> Also - I'm not saying it's iron clad...but your POV isn't iron clad evidence either....
> 
> So we'll see how it plays out in court.


I guess I just can't believe anything this guy is saying in interviews, for the time being. He has been discredited by several eye witnesses that wish to remain nameless right now. He says he ignored the police when they said turn down the radio, and a witness says he actually yelled, "it's my F**** radio!" and turned it *up*....he seems to be picking and choosing what he tells people in interviews and the stories aren't matching up. He is painting himself in a positive light (I guess many would do the same) and leaving out his actual comments. Many videos are coming out, as well as eye witnesses...it'll be interesting how this plays out in court.


----------



## DaniFani

Gwenhwyfair said:


> I think of it differently, we are more (on this board) like a jury and jury is comprised of people like us, who are not trained in the law. Ultimately in many cases the decision rests on the lay people of the jury.
> 
> So while I don't agree with everyone I do think many people have made good points.


Sorry, I disagree that we are "like a jury." A jury gets *all* the evidence...we are going off of you tube videos and interviews that are not under oath. We have limited answers from the police department, random eye witness statements (again, not under oath), and a few interviews from the dog owner, that are already being discredited by witnesses....so, I do not think we are anything like a "jury"...at best *we* are bystanders, forming opinions on limited information....the actual words exchanged are *very* important in this case, and a key piece we don't have when forming our opinions....we may have a few pieces, but we don't have the complete picture....I think it's fine to say we are forming opinions, but not "like a jury."


----------



## Fade2Black

selzer said:


> There was no reason for that dog to die like that. I think the fact that the man had a history with the police does play into this and that can be just as much a negative on the side of the officers involved, than on the side of the man.


Exactly. It was payback. If I lived in that neighborhood I would watch my back for more payback.....




jafo220 said:


> The dog as well as the owner should have never been in this situation.


We can disagree about that and I respect your opinion.....

But one person that shouldn't have been there was Jeffery Salmon the Thug cop that shot Max. How is it possible a cop that was part of a Brutality lawsuit that cost the city 1 million be allowed to remain on the force?? Hawthorne Police Department Pays $1,000,000 To Settle Police Brutality & Corruption Lawsuit Other officers didn't shoot Max. That Thug did. Maby is Police dept's spent as much time weeding out their Thug officers as they do protecting them things like this wouldn't happen.....


----------



## Swifty

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Your post should be prefaced with in *your* judgement.
> 
> You're pretty good at hammering at what *you think* is right, throwing in deflections and repeated protestations but my previous comment stands. I know this meme of keep repeating something and it will become true is an internet debating technique but it doesn't work on me.
> 
> Unless other evidence beyond that which we have access to here on this forum comes to light I think your POV is incorrect.


I don't say *in my opinion* or *in my judgement* because it isn't just *in my judgement* or *in my opinion*. I'm using generalized or objective rules of behavior. 

That the owner had the responsibility to secure his dog is *not my opinion*, that is a legal *fact* and a moral rule. That the owner failed in his responsibility is *not my opinion*, that is an observable *fact* in the video. That failures in responsibility lead to both moral and legal culpability is *not my opinion* but is a *basic rule of our society*. Whether or not police can shoot dogs rather than risk getting bit is *not my opinion* but has been demonstrated as justified and is logically justifiable in countless circumstances.

The only opinion I am expressing is that shooting an unknown and seemingly hostile dog is a _good_ policy to have. There is little doubt that the policy *exists*.


----------



## DaniFani

Fade2Black said:


> Exactly. It was payback. If I lived in that neighborhood I would watch my back for more payback.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can disagree about that and I respect your opinion.....
> 
> But one person that shouldn't have been there was Jeffery Salmon the Thug cop that shot Max. How is it possible a cop that was part of a Brutality lawsuit that cost the city 1 million be allowed to remain on the force?? Hawthorne Police Department Pays $1,000,000 To Settle Police Brutality & Corruption Lawsuit Other officers didn't shoot Max. That Thug did. Maby is Police dept's spent as much time weeding out their Thug officers as they do protecting them things like this wouldn't happen.....


You keep bringing this up over and over....I haven't read the lawsuit, but it doesn't change my opinion...you don't know how another cop would have acted. One with no history could have acted the same way if he felt threatened by a bystander turning up his radio when asked to turn it down, swearing at the officer, and then walking over to them, demanding to know why there aren't more "black" cops and yelling that that is discriminatory. IF those comments are true, and even if they are the ONLY comments the guy said...I think they had every right to detain him until the crime scene was done. Almost every physical altercation with ANYONE starts out with yelling, swearing, big attitudes, etc...why do you think the cops shouldn't have assumed this time the same actions may not have resulted in a fight...at a *crime scene*

The dog owner has a criminal history, has a bad attitude, was swearing at the officers, etc...I could say that alone shouldn't allow him to go anywhere near a crime scene.

We aren't debating the officer's history (I don't know the case), just like we aren't debating the dog owner's criminal past....we are debating the actions taken, *in this case* and if they were right or wrong. You bringing up the officer's history over and over again isn't proving your point the 5th time any more than it did the first time....


----------



## Swifty

llombardo said:


> What do you think would have happened if the guy reached over in the car to roll up the windows? Or tried getting in the car to roll them up? Do you think those officers would have still just walked up to the car or rushed the car, with a Rott in the car and windows open? As someone else stated the officers already had their hands on their weapons as they approached him. IMO the guy did the right thing[...]


Those unanswerable questions do *not* decrease or eliminate his responsibility to secure the dog. If something bad had happened to the owner because he was trying to secure the dog, that just means something bad happened while the owner was trying to do _the right thing_ and the police misunderstood.

Instead, he took a risk and did _the wrong thing_. It cost his dog it's life.


----------



## llombardo

Swifty said:


> Those unanswerable questions do *not* decrease or eliminate his responsibility to secure the dog. If something bad had happened to the owner because he was trying to secure the dog, that just means something bad happened while the owner was trying to do _the right thing_ and the police misunderstood.
> 
> Instead, he took a risk and did _the wrong thing_. It cost his dog it's life.


They had their hands on their weapons as they were approaching and he was putting the dog in the car. What do you think he should have done? If I had police approaching me with their hands on their weapons, there is no way that I would take any longer in the car then necessary. That is the wrong thing to do.


----------



## Swifty

llombardo said:


> They had their hands on their weapons as they were approaching and he was putting the dog in the car. What do you think he should have done? If I had police approaching me with their hands on their weapons, there is no way that I would take any longer in the car then necessary. That is the wrong thing to do.


Securing the dog is not _the wrong thing to do_. You're just saying it is _risky_ given that police had their hands on their weapons. I don't necessarily disagree, though I have serious doubts that any harm would have come to him since they would have most likely just chased him down rather than shoot. However, the _risk_ of the action does not decrease his _responsibility_ to perform. It just means it's risky. As to what he should have done? He should have never put himself *or his dog* in a situation where he had _no clear options open to him_. He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't, from his perspective. He is _still_ responsible for his dog's actions and it's ultimate death, though.


----------



## llombardo

DaniFani said:


> We aren't debating the officer's history (I don't know the case), just like we aren't debating the dog owner's criminal past....we are debating the actions taken, *in this case* and if they were right or wrong. You bringing up the officer's history over and over again isn't proving your point the 5th time any more than it did the first time....


Well yes the officers history does play a role. Not only does he have a lawsuit against him for something else, this very same man named him in a complaint. So yes his(the police officers) history does play a role. It is not like this officer did not know this man, which makes it much much worse. It makes me and I'm sure a few others wonder if the officer in question would have even approached this guy if he didn't have a history with him. That information is valuable and I would be interested in seeing if that will even be allowed to be brought up in court.


----------



## llombardo

I just think that in a crime ridden neighborhood like this one, the police have more to worry about then a loud radio. It just doesn't make sense to me for them to do what they did. Were they disrespected? Yes. They should have just let the guy get in the car and go. It wasn't worth their time and effort to pursue this guy. If this was a small town or a place where this kind of stuff doesn't happen, I can almost understand how the police would have time for a loud radio and disrespectful person.


----------



## DaniFani

llombardo said:


> Well yes the officers history does play a role. Not only does he have a lawsuit against him for something else, this very same man named him in a complaint. So yes his(the police officers) history does play a role. It is not like this officer did not know this man, which makes it much much worse. It makes me and I'm sure a few others wonder if the officer in question would have even approached this guy if he didn't have a history with him. That information is valuable and I would be interested in seeing if that will even be allowed to be brought up in court.


Sorry, I should have clarified, I meant the officer's history in a different case. His history with the dog owner is absolutely important....but that's a two way street, Llombardo. You could just as easily say that the dog owner thought, "oh that's the guy I'm suing...game on...I'm going to get this jerk to get into another altercation with me....and it will all be on tape." I am also suspicious of the history, but on *both* sides, where you only seem to be concerned with one....the one that supports your POV.


----------



## DaniFani

llombardo said:


> I just think that in a crime ridden neighborhood like this one, the police have more to worry about then a loud radio. It just doesn't make sense to me for them to do what they did. Were they disrespected? Yes. They should have just let the guy get in the car and go. It wasn't worth their time and effort to pursue this guy. If this was a small town or a place where this kind of stuff doesn't happen, I can almost understand how the police would have time for a loud radio and disrespectful person.


It wasn't about disrespect, and I doubt they would have cared about the loud radio in a different *context*. But at a crime scene, where it is very important that they be able to *hear* what's going on...a loud radio blasting...interfering with that hearing....is a different situation....it's all about *context*.


----------



## Swifty

DaniFani said:


> It wasn't about disrespect, and I doubt they would have cared about the loud radio in a different *context*. But at a crime scene, where it is very important that they be able to *hear* what's going on...a loud radio blasting...interfering with that hearing....is a different situation....it's all about *context*.


In a different context they probably would have warned him to turn it down, too, depending on the local ordinances. Loud music annoys the people around (including police) and citizens sometimes call police if it's excessively loud. The fact that it was a crime scene makes the dog owner _incredibly stupid_ for pushing his luck.


----------



## Fade2Black

Something to think about. The common theme is in all these cases (and many more) the police are Never wrong and Never held accountable...... Death, taxes and Police will continue to blast innocent pets with no consequences.....

MEET THE DOGS
by Dogs Shot by Police (Notes) on Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 8:31pm

https://www.facebook.com/Justice4Ace (Ace)

https://www.facebook.com/HopeForAllie (Allie)
https://www.facebook.com/JusticeForAthena (Athena)
https://www.facebook.com/justiceforava (Ava)
https://www.facebook.com/Axel.mcgeein?fref=ts (Axel)
www.facebook.com/Justice4Bandit (Bandit)
https://www.facebook.com/injuredbaxter (Baxter)
http://siouxsielaw.com/2010/08/06/justice-for-bear-bear/ (Bear Bear)
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-for-Bella/112769172098103 (Bella)
 https://www.facebook.com/CopShotMyDogbelly (Belly)
https://www.facebook.com/BigBoy212012 (Big Daddy/Big Boy)
https://www.facebook.com/JusticeForBlueDogshotByPolice (Blue)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/472758742737456/ (Blue Dog)
https://www.facebook.com/BooBoo.Nemi (Boo and Nemi)
https://www.facebook.com/justice4booboo (Boo Boo)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/255046124582632/ (Boog)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/255046124582632/ (Boog)
https://www.facebook.com/JusticeForBoogie (Boogie)
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Boomers-Voice/160030397422056 (Boomer Florida)
https://www.facebook.com/JusticeForBoozerTheiAmBoozerProject (Boozer)
https://www.facebook.com/JusticeforBos (Bos)
https://www.facebook.com/justiceforboyd (Boyd)
https://www.facebook.com/pages/BOZ/489683737719798?fref=ts (Boz)
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-for-Bradpit-Shot-by-Police/405819622814932 (Brad)
https://www.facebook.com/JusticeforBucky (Bucky)
https://www.facebook.com/events/193656530693371/ (Buddy)
https://www.facebook.com/JusticeForBullet (Bullet)
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-for-Bully-Boss-Kahlua/407257949331958 (Bully, Boss & Kahlua)
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-for-a-stray-dog-called-Bugsy/101523899906658 (Bugsy)
https://www.facebook.com/JusticeForCage?fref=ts (Cage)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/135897433094300/ (Cammie new format)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/135897433094300/ (Cammie)
https://www.facebook.com/justice4capone (Capone)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/28369121139/ (Champ)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/28369121139/ (Champ new format)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/253714564743226/ (Chino)
https://www.facebook.com/JusticeForChloe (Chloe)
http://www.justiceforchloe.com/ (Chloe)
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-for-Chloe-Dog-shot-by-Commerce-City-Co-Police/511482865538207 (Chloe)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/Justice4Chloe/ (Chloe - group)
https://www.facebook.com/FightChoochFoundation?fref=pb (Chooch)
 https://www.facebook.com/helpChopper?fref=ts (Chopper)
https://www.facebook.com/JusticeForCisco (Cisco)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/268062779798/members/ (Coco)
https://www.facebook.com/ColonelPhillips (Colonel Phillips)
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-For-Dakota3/370361556777 (Dakota)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/318316120451/ (Dakota)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/394292037290425/ (Diablo)
https://www.facebook.com/AllInSupportForJusticeForDog (Dog)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/322897243375/ (Dudley)
https://www.facebook.com/editnote.php?draft&note_id=442079395814430&id=188434097845629 (Eve & Ruckus)
https://www.facebook.com/JusticeForFord (Ford)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/321344347988706/ (Fritz)
https://www.facebook.com/SueDrummondTempleton (Fritz and Egon)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/373541096027333/ (Gizmo)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/129446467105729/ (Gloria)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/191883317495051/ (Harley)
https://www.facebook.com/hazethecat (Haze - yes, they shoot cats too.)
https://www.facebook.com/JusticeForIce (Ice)
https://www.facebook.com/RipJagerMichael (Jager Michael)
https://www.facebook.com/JusticeForJohnnyCash (Johnny Cash)
https://www.facebook.com/JusticeForJoJo (JoJo)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/102587702188/ (Killer)
https://www.facebook.com/JusticeForKimbo (Kimbo)
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Kincaid-Killed-by-Baltimore-City-Police/129570580537016 (Kincaid)
https://www.facebook.com/JusticeForLacy (Lacy & Kirra)
https://www.facebook.com/JusticeForLaila (Laila)
https://www.facebook.com/JusticeForLicker (Licker)
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Remembering-Lily-A-Reason-for-Change/304212019673773 (Lily)
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-for-our-pittie-girl-Lucy/158987300930841 (Lucy)
https://www.facebook.com/lucysjustice?fref=ts (Lucy)
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-for-Luke/174450632679714 (Luke)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/546673172037724/ (Maximus)
https://www.facebook.com/JusticeForMeaty (Meaty)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/202030693153998/ (Melmo)
https://www.facebook.com/JusticeForMerlin?fref=ts (Merlin)
https://www.facebook.com/MocosLastWish (Moco)
https://www.facebook.com/mopz.fitzsimonsclay (Mopz)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/111087975570088/ (Nellie)
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-for-Nikki/300517616669938 (Nikki)
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-for-Norton/105324966309354 (Norton)
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-For-Odie/174443992707041?ref=ts&fref=ts (Odie)
https://www.facebook.com/BeOzzysVoice (Ozzy)
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Demand-Justice-for-Parott/144103335631240 (Parrot)
https://www.facebook.com/Parrot.The.Pitbull (Parrot)
https://www.facebook.com/Parrot.The.Pitbull (Parrot)
https://www.facebook.com/InPennysName (Penny)
 https://www.facebook.com/pages/Inno...t-by-a-retired-police-officer/383476084996673 (Poppy)
https://www.facebook.com/JusticeForPrada (Prada)
https://www.facebook.com/PreselysPage (Presley)
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-for-Raven/174685345941916 (Raven)
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-For-Remi/226487464030014?fref=ts (Remi)
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-for-Robine-Hood-and-Aidan/171302136237148 (Robine, Hood & Aidan)
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Remember-Roscoe-Harrison/210840375641469 (Roscoe/Rosco)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/justiceforrosie/ (Rosie)
https://www.facebook.com/JusticeForRugar (Rugar)
https://www.facebook.com/JusticeForRuger (Ruger)
https://www.facebook.com/savesamuel (Sam)
https://www.facebook.com/JusticeForScarthePitMix (Scar)
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-for-Scout-and-his-Family/416171498439981 (Scout)
https://www.facebook.com/supportforshiner (Shiner Bock)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/255506901225702/?fref=ts (Spade and Sobe)
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice4Thunder-Dog-Shot-by-Police/210304822433787 (Thunder)
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Help...amily-Dogs-by-Police-Officers/261363810553606 (Titan)
https://www.facebook.com/titusjustice (Titus)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/138390546249106/ (Myron’s Shadow)
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-for-Shadow/227739163960552 (North Meyers, FL Shadow)
https://www.facebook.com/shadowsproject9312 (Shadow Horry County, South Carolina)
https://www.facebook.com/StarTheNewYorkPitbullShotByPolice (Star & Others)
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-for-Tanner/200370680010752 (Tanner)
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice4Thunder-Dog-Shot-by-Police/210304822433787 (Thunder)
https://www.facebook.com/JusticeForTitan?ref=stream (Titan)
https://www.facebook.com/JusticeForVinny (Vinny)
https://www.facebook.com/pages/In-the-Memory-of-******-the-Boxer/244340962243096 (******)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/134846459858982/ (Xena)
https://www.facebook.com/Justice4Ziggy?ref=stream (Ziggy)
*Sister Page*


https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mr-Policeman-Dont-Shoot-My-Dog/131560703558002 (Mr. Policeman, Don’t Shoot My Dog)
* Earlier pages that inspired Dogs Shot by Police * 


https://www.facebook.com/groups/133207443373148/ (Against Police Killing Our Pets)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/107022679343013/ (Fire All Public Safety Officials Who Shoot Animals)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/131165106895034/ (Justice for Innocent Dogs that Get Slaughtered by the Police)


----------



## Swifty

Fade2Black said:


> Something to think about. The common theme is in all these cases (and many more) the police are Never wrong and Never held accountable...... Death, taxes and Police will continue to blast innocent pets with no consequences...


Are you trying to say that the police are _always_ wrong and should automatically be fired and jailed whenever they shoot a dog? I would imagine that _sometimes_ the police are justified.


----------



## llombardo

Swifty said:


> Are you trying to say that the police are _always_ wrong and should automatically be fired and jailed whenever they shoot a dog? I would imagine that _sometimes_ the police are justified.


I don't think that is what is being said, I think what is being said is that if you go down the list of dogs killed by police officers in questionable situations(on their property or with the owner present) they are hardly, if ever held accountable. That is a big issue, because they are human and it would be nice if they didn't try to make excuses or they accepted responsibility. Until they start doing this, more and more people are going to learn to dislike what they stand for.


----------



## Swifty

llombardo said:


> I don't think that is what is being said, I think what is being said is that if you go down the list of dogs killed by police officers in questionable situations(on their property or with the owner present) they are hardly, if ever held accountable. That is a big issue, because they are human and it would be nice if they didn't try to make excuses or they accepted responsibility. Until they start doing this, more and more people are going to learn to dislike what they stand for.


It's totally a big issue, and I agree that more responsibility needs to be shown in situations involving dogs. I think when police respond to homes, especially when the calls are from someone reporting a crime and are not themselves suspects, the possibility of a dog at the home needs to be considered and appropriate training for that situation needs to be done.

However, it is _also_ true that it is justifiable to shoot dogs in some circumstances. The situation presented in the video is one such circumstance. The dog was not in a home or vehicle, was uncontrolled and showed aggression to officers. It is not fair to say that _because officers were wrong before they *must* be wrong now too_. I agree that more people (maybe even *most*) are not going to sympathize with police while their training involving dogs is inadequate and, imo, that is exactly what we are seeing. People are _automatically_ blaming the officers because officers have shot dogs in the past when they weren't justified.


----------



## DaniFani

Facebook....that's considered credible now?....I guess I'm debating with the wrong people.....


----------



## Swifty

llombardo said:


> I don't think that is what is being said, I think what is being said is that if you go down the list of dogs killed by police officers in questionable situations(on their property or with the owner present) they are hardly, if ever held accountable. That is a big issue, because they are human and it would be nice if they didn't try to make excuses or they accepted responsibility. Until they start doing this, more and more people are going to learn to dislike what they stand for.


To add to my previous post: Look at what the officers did in this video objectively. To my mind, what the officers did _here_ is actually how I would _want_ officers to behave around dogs in that situation. If _all_ officers were as cautious and conscientious then there would probably be a lot fewer dog shootings.

Consider: the dog jumps out of the car and runs at the group of officers, who draw their weapons _but don't shoot the 'charging' dog_. They give the dog all the time and space between them to stop, which it does. Good so far. Then one of the officers tries to grab the collar to end the confrontation without lethal force which is _awesome_ control and generosity on the part of the officer since reaching for the dog carries significant risk to the officer. The dog's life depended on it's ability to allow officers to control him. It is _extremely unfortunate_ that this was a young rottie who would not tolerate strangers handling him and snapped at officers. At that point shooting the dog was justified since it showed aggression.

There is a story floating around about officers shooting an old cocker spaniel or something and I cannot help but think that if the officers with the spaniel had shown the restraint that the officers in this video did then the spaniel would still be alive.


----------



## llombardo

DaniFani said:


> Facebook....that's considered credible now?....I guess I'm debating with the wrong people.....


All those "facebook" links actually link to the news stories and/or petition in each individual case. So yes, since its linked to the newspapers articles and news stories, and to the real people that these things happened to.


----------



## llombardo

Swifty said:


> . Then one of the officers tries to grab the collar to end the confrontation without lethal force which is _awesome_ control and generosity on the part of the officer since reaching for the dog carries significant risk to the officer. The dog's life depended on it's ability to allow officers to control him. .


This would be the biggest issue of all. This is why that dog is dead. Yes the officers tried to control the situation, but you don't try grabbing a Rott that is already angry and confused. If the police officers had more training they would know this. This doesn't take brain science. The dog needed a moment to calm down and that dog wasn't given the courtesy. They jumped the gun. The police department even went as far to say that they were protecting the dogs owner also Some might say that they reacted correctly. I think the dog deserved more of a chance. The only moment that I could see them defending themselves is if that dog's mouth was on one of the officers, at that point they would have to shoot. Even then I would still think they were at fault because they shouldn't have bothered anyway. The video isn't that long, so how long was it before the original crime scene was secure when this guy came along? I would guess probably almost immediately. The articles state the officers approached him after the other thing was secure, correct? So that would mean moments passed that the guy might and that is a big might have been "obstructing justice", which I use that term loosely.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Ahhh but the PD in question doesn't have a sterling record either!

So I'd call that a wash.....



DaniFani said:


> I guess I just can't believe anything this guy is saying in interviews, for the time being. He has been discredited by several eye witnesses that wish to remain nameless right now. He says he ignored the police when they said turn down the radio, and a witness says he actually yelled, "it's my F**** radio!" and turned it *up*....he seems to be picking and choosing what he tells people in interviews and the stories aren't matching up. He is painting himself in a positive light (I guess many would do the same) and leaving out his actual comments. Many videos are coming out, as well as eye witnesses...it'll be interesting how this plays out in court.


----------



## Swifty

llombardo said:


> This would be the biggest issue of all. This is why that dog is dead. Yes the officers tried to control the situation, but you don't try grabbing a Rott that is already angry and confused.


Their options were this or simply shoot the dog. They chose to risk themselves to avoid lethal force but the dog would not allow itself to be handled. This is actually _the opposite_ of 'jumping the gun' or 'being trigger happy'. It shows they actually cared about preserving the dog's life and that is how I want officers to behave. They gave the dog every chance they should have been expected to give and more. The line the officers drew was roughly where the line _should be_, imo, since officers have to think about their own safety and the safety of citizens around them, too.

Whether or not you think detaining the owner is justified is immaterial. The officers had to handle the situation of the dog coming at them and don't have a time machine to 'un-detain' the owner.


----------



## Fade2Black

Swifty said:


> Are you trying to say that the police are _always_ wrong and should automatically be fired and jailed whenever they shoot a dog? I would imagine that _sometimes_ the police are justified.



No. As an experiment. I did a search of the local newspaper for stories I was unaware of. There were 5 stories in the last couple years. 3 I side with the Police version. One I can't tell. The one I didn't the police came to the scene because of a scuffle (in Ocean City). A neighbors unleashed Rott was blasted because the officers said it was "aggressive". The owner said the Mom was next to the dog as it was shot twice. They said the dog didn't bark. Ocean City is a resort town. They said thousands of people have passed their house in the 8 years the dog was alive. Another neighbor interviewed said the dog has never bothered anyone and watched from across the street as the Rott was shot. They back the Rott's owners version. The people in the alleged fight were never located. The incident was "under investigation" by the OCPD and the Cape May prosecutors office. Since this was from 2010 I assume the officers got away with it.....


----------



## Fade2Black

^^^edit^^^

I had done this several days ago. I forgot some things. Ocean City is an affluent area. This incident took place at 1 am. People like to sit outside and catch the cool ocean breeze. The Police said the fight was a large one in that vicinity. The officer that shot the Rott twice was with his K9 partner. They never addressed the large fight. Just went after the Rott. None of the Rotts people were involved with the fight.......

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/article_fb6905b8-9813-11df-86e4-001cc4c002e0.html


----------



## Swifty

Fade2Black said:


> ^^^edit^^^
> 
> I had done this several days ago. I forgot some things. Ocean City is an affluent area. This incident took place at 1 am. People like to sit outside and catch the cool ocean breeze. The Police said the fight was a large one in that vicinity. The officer that shot the Rott twice was with his K9 partner. They never addressed the large fight. Just went after the Rott. None of the Rotts people were involved with the fight.......
> 
> Ocean City police officer shoots dog; owner and neighbor say shooting unjustified and could have injured mother - pressofAtlanticCity.com: News


Certainly sounds like you're right. If the dog was sitting next to the woman and not doing anything then shooting it wouldn't be justified. Being unleashed is a potential danger, but it doesn't seem like the dog ever left their property or even approached the officer. Their depiction of events makes it seem like a random shooting, though, which I find untrustworthy.


----------



## llombardo

Swifty said:


> Their options were this or simply shoot the dog. They chose to risk themselves to avoid lethal force but the dog would not allow itself to be handled. This is actually _the opposite_ of 'jumping the gun' or 'being trigger happy'. It shows they actually cared about preserving the dog's life and that is how I want officers to behave. They gave the dog every chance they should have been expected to give and more. The line the officers drew was roughly where the line _should be_, imo, since officers have to think about their own safety and the safety of citizens around them, too.
> 
> Whether or not you think detaining the owner is justified is immaterial. The officers had to handle the situation of the dog coming at them and don't have a time machine to 'un-detain' the owner.


Yes they had options and they chose to shoot the dog. Was the dog biting any of them? They gave the dog every chance?? How many times did they attempt to grab the dog and the dog growled at them before they shot? Are we watching the same video? They didn't care about preserving that dog's life, they wanted him out of the way, as simple as that. If they cared, he would be alive today. They did not have any training to deal with this and they did not use their brains when grabbing at the dog or shooting it. They reacted rather quickly. Even if they shot this dog once in his foot, that would have been enough to stop him...4 times and watch him suffer?? WRONG I certainly would expect the dog to go after me if I tried grabbing it when it was in the state it was in. My golden barks and lunges when he's excited, so maybe I'm understanding how the dog was feeling more then lets say you. That dog did not attempt to go for any of them until they tried touching him. He was warning them and guarding(his way of telling them to back off), nothing more. Do you think your dog in a state of this kind of excitement would allow anyone to touch it, besides you? How do you suppose one should train their dog not to act like that? It would be impossible based some of these breeds. That is what they are meant to do.They had the option of letting this guy get the dog. He was begging them, did you hear that part? All they had to do is let him pick up that leash, that would have been how I expected them to behave. This is one dog and a scared one at that against how many officers with guns? Where are the stun guns at? They had way more options then they explored.


----------



## Swifty

llombardo said:


> Yes they had options and they chose to shoot the dog. Was the dog biting any of them? They gave the dog every chance?? How many times did they attempt to grab the dog and the dog growled at them before they shot? Are we watching the same video?


Waiting until the dog actually bites them (or someone else) seems to be an excessive requirement :-\ I don't think you're being reasonable to even suggest such a thing. When the risk of injury becomes likely, that is probably where the line is drawn. Even reaching for the dog's collar was a risk, but it was done in the interest of ending the confrontation without lethal force.



llombardo said:


> They had the option of letting this guy get the dog. He was begging them, did you hear that part? All they had to do is let him pick up that leash, that would have been how I expected them to behave.


That expectation is irrational; the police don't let people go just because they have a dog. Once he is handcuffed I don't think they realistically had the option of releasing him, even 'just for a minute', until they resolved the issue that prompted them to handcuff him to begin with. In addition, once he is handcuffed he is under police protection even if they are protecting him from his own dog. Given your suggestions, it seems the officers used all realistic options open to them to end the situation without bloodshed.



llombardo said:


> That dog did not attempt to go for any of them until they tried touching him. He was warning them and guarding(his way of telling them to back off), nothing more. Do you think your dog in a state of this kind of excitement would allow anyone to touch it, besides you? How do you suppose one should train their dog not to act like that? It would be impossible based some of these breeds. That is what they are meant to do.


I don't disagree. Sometimes the police are not able to control the dogs for those reasons and more. However, the attempt was made in order to end the confrontation without harming the dog. The police do not back down from threats like this, nor would they let a potentially aggressive dog be on it's way; they exist to protect _us_ from threats. The police were going to end the confrontation either by controlling the dog or by neutralizing the dog. They tried to control it first which is commendable and is exactly what I want the police to try _before_ lethal force is used.


----------



## MichaelE

I think the general public is becoming fed up with Gestapo tactics police have been using for the last decade.

They best start watching their back. I don't think the American public is going to put up with much more of this crap. I certainly wouldn't.


----------



## Swifty

MichaelE said:


> I think the general public is becoming fed up with Gestapo tactics police have been using for the last decade.
> 
> They best start watching their back. I don't think the American public is going to put up with much more of this crap. I certainly wouldn't.


The Gestapo served as Hitler's secret police and were best known for enforcing a reign of terror typified by abductions and executions, as well as aiding and abetting genocide. Do you think the majority of police in the United States are comparable to that? As far as I am aware, the people who complain about the police don't 'disappear' mysteriously.

Let's keep some perspective, please.


----------



## MichaelE

I am well aware of the tactics the Gestapo, SD, and other departments of the Allgemeine SS used from the period of 1933 to 1945 under Heinrich Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich, and a host of other monsters.

Very few people were abducted by the either the Geheime Statts Polizei or the Sicherheitsdients. Torture was seldom used except on religious groups, mostly Catholic. Abductees were mostly Communist organizers or underground operatives.

You should look up how many no-knock warrants have been botched by the police, how many innocent individuals have been hurt or killed because of them, and how judges look the other way when charges are brought up against them.

https://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/03/59061.htm Beaten and arrested for not letting the police use their residence for a stakeout?

Botched Paramilitary Police Raids | Cato Institute Map of botched police raids in the US.

Judge Finds Cop Not Guilty of Assault after Refusing to Watch Video of Assault : Federal Jack

St. Louis judge refuses to watch police abuse video and declares cop not guilty. 

Now what would you like to discuss about the SS, Gestapo, SD, and the Third Reich?


----------



## llombardo

MichaelE said:


> I think the general public is becoming fed up with Gestapo tactics police have been using for the last decade.
> 
> They best start watching their back. I don't think the American public is going to put up with much more of this crap. I certainly wouldn't.


Was it you that was a police officer before? I can't remember


----------



## MichaelE

Yes. Sheriff's Deputy.


----------



## ken k

Swifty said:


> As far as I am aware, the people who complain about the police don't 'disappear' mysteriously.



not yet,


----------



## Swifty

MichaelE said:


> You should look up how many no-knock warrants have been botched by the police, how many innocent individuals have been hurt or killed because of them, and how judges look the other way when charges are brought up against them.
> 
> https://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/03/59061.htm Beaten and arrested for not letting the police use their residence for a stakeout?
> 
> Botched Paramilitary Police Raids | Cato Institute Map of botched police raids in the US.
> 
> Judge Finds Cop Not Guilty of Assault after Refusing to Watch Video of Assault : Federal Jack
> 
> St. Louis judge refuses to watch police abuse video and declares cop not guilty.
> 
> Now what would you like to discuss about the SS, Gestapo, SD, and the Third Reich?


Finding incidents of abuses of power is not going to be difficult. I do contest, however, that the 'general public' either _feels_ or _is being_ subject to a reign where police routinely use their power to abuse and terrify citizens. I would wager the vast majority of people have positive (or at least not negative) experiences with police.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?


----------



## llombardo

Swifty said:


> Finding incidents of abuses of power is not going to be difficult. I do contest, however, that the 'general public' either _feels_ or _is being_ subject to a reign of terror where police routinely abuse their authority. I would wager the vast majority of people have positive (or at least not negative) experiences with police.


I'm sure that he knows what he's talking about, since that used to be his profession. Depending on where your from, yes they do routinely abuse their authority. I wish I could say it wasn't so, but it has been going this way the last 20 years, getting worse in the last 10 years. People don't even try to change it anymore, because the people will NEVER win. You can say its political.


----------



## Swifty

ken k said:


> not yet,


We aren't being rounded up and ethnically cleansed yet, either. I don't really fear that it will happen, though.


----------



## Swifty

llombardo said:


> I'm sure that he knows what he's talking about, since that used to be his profession. Depending on where your from, yes they do routinely abuse their authority. I wish I could say it wasn't so, but it has been going this way the last 20 years, getting worse in the last 10 years. People don't even try to change it anymore, because the people will NEVER win. You can say its political.


A claim as vast and far-reaching as his requires more than me taking his word for it. I dispute that even the majority of the 'general public' fears that the police have the power to abuse them indiscriminately, let alone most or all.


----------



## Fade2Black

MichaelE said:


> Now what would you like to discuss about the SS, Gestapo, SD, and the Third Reich?


Here is a link to a bunch more.....

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.426766680694172.87151.165801456790697&type=1


----------



## llombardo

Swifty said:


> A claim as vast and far-reaching as his requires more than me taking his word for it. I dispute that the majority of the 'general public' fears that the police have the power to abuse them indiscriminately.


I will admit that its not all the time in all areas, but in certain areas it is. There is no room for it to happen anywhere at anytime. I have seen some unbelievable stuff, so I know the difference. Just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean its not happening. Closing your mind to the fact that it does happen, makes it possible for it to keep happening.


----------



## MichaelE

Yes. Abuse of authority is very common. I could not with a clear conscience continue in this profession after my military service. My department was very corrupt. There is still the occasional newspaper article about what happens there, but just like at most departments, most of the abuse is never heard about, or swept under the rug and forgotten about. The corruption extends way past abusing the general public or those in custody.

I goes against everything I was brought up to believe about integrity, duty, honesty, and compassion.

Swifty, you may yet one day be on the receiving end of a not so nice police visit through no fault of your own. You will then remember these words and find out it was all true.


----------



## Swifty

MichaelE said:


> Yes. Abuse of athority is very common. I could not with a clear conscience continue in this profession after my military service. My department was very corrupt. There is still the occasional newspaper article about what happens there, but just like at most departments, most of the abuse is never heard about, or swept under the rug and forgotten about. The corruption extends way past abusing the general public or those in custody.
> 
> I goes against everything I was brought up to believe about integrity, duty, honesty, and compassion.
> 
> Swifty, you may yet one day be on the receiving end of a not so nice police visit through no fault of your own. You will then remember these words and find out it was all true.


Indeed, perhaps I will. Or perhaps your experience was atypical.


----------



## llombardo

Swifty said:


> A claim as vast and far-reaching as his requires more than me taking his word for it. I dispute that even the majority of the 'general public' fears that the police have the power to abuse them indiscriminately, let alone most or all.


And I think that the number of people that don't trust the police is higher then you think, much higher. Until it happens to you, you can't dispute it. Our old neighbor was a police officer. He had issues with a couple people in the neighborhood. $15000.00 later in unpaid parking tickets issued in places people have never been, issued by him and his partner said it all. Yep it was investigated, the tickets went away and guess who still had a job without any consequences? That is just one situation. I can name over a hundred more.


----------



## Swifty

llombardo said:


> I will admit that its not all the time in all areas, but in certain areas it is. There is no room for it to happen anywhere at anytime. I have seen some unbelievable stuff, so I know the difference. Just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean its not happening. Closing your mind to the fact that it does happen, makes it possible for it to keep happening.


I don't close my mind to the possibility of abuses: I readily admit they occur. I dispute, however, that even the majority of citizens in this country experience any type of abuse from police. I don't believe there is any support to the claim that the 'general public' is fed up with police tactics. People blame political leaders more than police, and rightly so I think.


----------



## llombardo

Swifty said:


> Indeed, perhaps I will. Or perhaps your experience was atypical.


Why do you not understand this? Its not atypical at all. Open your eyes. See it for what it is. Things are not the same as they were 20 years ago. Everything changes and not always for the better.


----------



## Swifty

llombardo said:


> And I think that the number of people that don't trust the police is higher then you think, much higher.


Perhaps. I am not going to believe that the majority are being terrorized by police without _substantial_ evidence, however. Individual instances of abuse will inevitably occur but that does not seem to represent the common experience or the common view by the 'general public'.


----------



## Swifty

llombardo said:


> Why do you not understand this? Its not atypical at all. Open your eyes. See it for what it is. Things are not the same as they were 20 years ago. Everything changes and not always for the better.


Open my eyes... to what? I already conceded that abuses of power occur. I literally have not seen, experienced, or been presented with evidence that terror and abuse are a _systemic and intrinsic_ part of police action. That is not a claim I will take simply on faith.


----------



## llombardo

Swifty said:


> I dispute, however, that even the majority of citizens in this country experience any type of abuse from police. I don't believe there is any support to the claim that the 'general public' is fed up with police tactics. People blame political leaders more than police, and rightly so I think.


Talk to people that live in the Chicagoland area. I'm sure that would change your mind. I can bet that they either have been on the other side of it or know someone that has. I can name at least 100 people that have experienced some kind of abuse from police. Maybe your opinion would be different if you really understood how widespread it is.


----------



## Swifty

llombardo said:


> Talk to people that live in the Chicagoland area. I'm sure that would change your mind. I can bet that they either have been on the other side of it or know someone that has. I can name at least 100 people that have experienced some kind of abuse from police. Maybe your opinion would be different if you really understood how widespread it is.


100 people is not 'widespread'. Chicago is not 'widespread'. Illinois is not 'widespread'. Police power varies from State to State, and a corrupt police force in one area does not inform about the vast, over-reaching, _national_ conspiracy intimated in this thread.


----------



## MichaelE

Unfortunately, the political leaders (local,state, federal) that control these forces aren't the ones that may suffer the consequences of the politicos policies & procedures.


----------



## wdkiser

llombardo said:


> Talk to people that live in the Chicagoland area. I'm sure that would change your mind. I can bet that they either have been on the other side of it or know someone that has. I can name at least 100 people that have experienced some kind of abuse from police. Maybe your opinion would be different if you really understood how widespread it is.


I don't think you can call Chicago "typical". Since I have lived in Illinois, I have come to discover that Chicago is the most corrupt place in America. Just look at their record with corrupt officials. I don't think you can compare Chicago to the rest of America or even the rest of Illinois.


----------



## MichaelE

There are a few places downstate you can compare it to. They do Chicago proud.

I worked in one of those places.


----------



## MichaelE

Swifty said:


> Open my eyes... to what? I already conceded that abuses of power occur. I literally have not seen, experienced, or been presented with evidence that terror and abuse are a _systemic and intrinsic_ part of police action. That is not a claim I will take simply on faith.


The question begs to be asked, why is it happening at all? This is not the role of police; to terrorize, kill, and maim, those they swore to protect. It happens much too often.

Accidents do happen unfortunately. The problem I have with accidents is that no one is held accountable.

Goes back to the basic concepts of integrity, duty, honesty, and compassion. These qualities are lacking in most department employees and supervisors.

If you have never served in a military or public service capacity, these may be foreign concepts. They certainly are to many in pubic service.


----------



## Swifty

MichaelE said:


> The question begs to be asked, why is it happening at all? This is not the role of police; to terrorize, kill, and maim, those they swore to protect. It happens much too often.
> 
> Accidents do happen unfortunately. The problem I have with accidents is that no one is held accountable.
> 
> Goes back to the basic concepts of integrity, duty, honesty, and compassion. These qualities are lacking in most department employees and supervisors.
> 
> If you have never served in a military or public service capacity, these may be foreign concepts. They certainly are to many in pubic service.


That question should not seriously be asked. Those who have power will always be tempted to abuse it and some inevitably will. I would never deny that abuses of power have, do, and _will_ occur while police have authority over citizens, but I do not think that police authority is unwarranted or unneeded. 

But, again, I don't think unlimited, unchecked, or anonymous power is common with the police force. They are usually part of the community and their power is kept in check by that community through both personal and political channels. If you corrupt the political channels then the community loses that check on police power.


----------



## llombardo

Swifty said:


> 100 people is not 'widespread'. Chicago is not 'widespread'. Illinois is not 'widespread'. Police power varies from State to State, and a corrupt police force in one area does not inform about the vast, over-reaching, _national_ conspiracy intimated in this thread.


Its not only in Chicago..its in Florida, California, New York, etc. Its everywhere. Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said it was widespread because I know of at least 100 people, that was an example. Because if I know of 100 people and those people know of even 25 people...it keeps going and going and eventually it reaches other areas.


----------



## ken k

Swifty said:


> We aren't being rounded up and ethnically cleansed yet, either. I don't really fear that it will happen, though.


no, maybe not in our lifetime, but if look how the police were 20 or 30 years ago, and now, you can imagine how its going to be 30 years from now


----------



## llombardo

wdkiser said:


> Just look at their record with corrupt officials. I don't think you can compare Chicago to the rest of America or even the rest of Illinois.



Here is a list of the top 8 corrupt states and Illinois is not even on it....So just imagine how these other states are if Illinois is so bad...

America?s Most Corrupt States | Fox Business


----------



## llombardo

Swifty said:


> They are usually part of the community and their power is kept in check by that community through both personal and political channels. If you corrupt the political channels then the community loses that check on police power.


There is your answer right there. Politicians are known not to be on the up and up across the board. If it starts there and they are corrupt, then how do you figure it doesn't trickle down? The community has no means to keep officers in check. We pay their salaries and expect them to do their job, if they don't, we still pay their salaries and there are no consequences. I'm sure you would report your police officer neighbor and I'm sure that would be as far as it would go. Do you think it would go anywhere if you reported something they did that you knew was wrong?


----------



## wdkiser

llombardo said:


> Here is a list of the top 8 corrupt states and Illinois is not even on it....So just imagine how these other states are if Illinois is so bad...
> 
> America?s Most Corrupt States | Fox Business


I didn't say Illinois was, I said Chicago was.


----------



## boomer11

i dont know how corrupt chicago is but i know it is EASILY top 5 in gun violence. i think almost 500 people died of gun violence in chicago last year. the average for a city that big is like 100ish? (thats all from the top of my head) if i was a cop there i'd be on edge and extra diligent. it DOES depend in what part of the country you live. if you lived in a city with a low crime rate, the cops are more friendly and dont escalate every situation because they arent constantly looking over their shoulder


----------



## MichaelE

500 gun deaths? That's impossible. They have the strictest gun laws in the nation.

How can they be killing people with guns? They are outlawed in Chicago. Why aren't criminals following the law? 

Oh, that's right, because gun laws only disarm the law abiding.

What was I thinking? Silly me.


----------



## Castlemaid

Discussion has moved completely off the incident and is now only focused on guns and corruption - off topic, political, and now, closed!


----------

