Scumbag police in usa kill dog

As long as everybody is getting upset over Cop news from reddit....

InfinitusEquitas said:

Care to expand on that first part? What is the "why"?

Click to expand...

No, cannot be arsed to.

scumbagatheist said:

As long as everybody is getting upset over Cop news from reddit....

http://i.imgur.com/5gJBchr.jpg

Click to expand...

To me that's quite a bit more upsetting actually. Let me guess, the cops felt threatened by the guy and attempted to restrain him with "limited" use of force.

FireMyLaser said:

No, cannot be arsed to.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and to express them.

Personally I believe most pro gun control folks are scared retards with far too much faith in the badge, and their governments.

TheDukeAnumber1 said:

To extrapolate your point grainde



Do you believe in all cases you need to be fire upon before returning fire. If someone pointed a loaded gun at you or your family you would take the "subjective" free approach and wait to see if you or your family dies? I know this is the most extreme case of the point but it's the point your arguing. If that dog had approached me in the manner it did that officer I would have shot it too.

Click to expand...

Im objecting to the fact that deadly force was used, which was totally unwarranted.

How do you think that would have played out if an unarmed member of the public were threatening the owner. Well any sane person would have told the owner of the dog to call it off. I dont see any reason to use deadly force.

Analogy might be a goldfish coming to nibble your toes and you throw in a hand grenade...well almost A better one would be someone pushes you in the street, yes they might be armed, but then they might not...do you shoot them 3 times to find out or walk on?

The officer used extreme measures which were not called for. The reason they did it was probably their firm conviction that they are the law and therefore above it.

My argument is that there is no accountability and that fool was a trigger happy one. An officer like that should probably get a psychological evaluation and/or a desk job...

While the guy should be allowed to record police operations (I'm not sure if that's exactly why he was arrested) -- just as people should be allowed to record the incident of the dog being shot -- I do think there's a valid claim of self defense in shooting the dog. I also don't think it's unreasonable to fire multiple shots, as the purpose is to kill the target, and nobody should be bothering with a tazer in such a situation. Tazers are for subduing belligerent people who are unarmed, but dangerous for containing. A dog on the other hand can bite and cause a great deal of harm. The tazer would probably miss anyway (a reason they're a big joke for personal defense).

The guy being arrested should have rolled up the windows more or tied the dog down. Though I don't blame the dog for trying to protect his master, it is a dangerous situation to have a dog like that going after someone.

grainde said:

Good deflection but please stay on point. The dog "could hurt" does not = the dog "will hurt" someone. Just like "might be" a criminal doesnt = "is" a criminal. My statement is a fact and backed up by your own admission that your friend is a police officer. Your assertions are subjective. Subjective means that you have a biased opinion, contrary to an objective one where you try to look at and present a balanced and informed opinion - to the best of your ability. Looks like you advocate preemptive attacks...just in case...

Click to expand...

In this case, however, that dog was in a threatening posture, and yes, a threatening posture is grounds for a takedown. The dog had even lept at the officer at the moment it was shot -- definite grounds for shooting it. If the dog was simply barking loudly, or chained up with no means to attack, those are not grounds for shooting it; however, that was not the case here.

I do think that the "fourth estate" -- the power of the media/print/investigation -- is an especially important part of Western society. Information suppression is the first act of repression. We should encourage the public to enforce accountability through recording incidents like these. The more the better, so that we have even more context in which to judge these things.

Look at that Treyvon Martin/Zimmerman trial. Whatever you may think about it, Zimmerman was given a lot of shit (death threats, tainting the jury pool) because a CNN journalist spliced some audio to make Zimmerman sound like a racist, rather than just answering a question posed by the dispatcher. We need to have multiple sources of information and information presentation so that we at least have multiple viewpoints from which to judge; it helps dilute any one specific view on an incident -- especially the view of an authority figure.

Unfortunately it seems that police officers are no longer taught to try to de-escalate the situation. They are only taught to take control by any means necessary, up to and including the use of deadly force.

This issue is further exacerbated by the overall militarization of police forces, and the preferential hiring of police officers from the pool veterans, of which there is a large one, coming from Iraq/Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Of course those coming from a military background are drilled to always obey without questioning...

End result is we end up with tragedies like this one, and countless others.

In the example of the OP, the cops really had to reason arrest the man... Of course now he'll likely be charged with at least aggravated assault, despite the cops being the sole instigators of the incident.

With regards to control though... violence is always the answer of those afraid. Given all the stories hitting the news literally non stop about abuses of power, maybe we'll see some kind of a major change. Such as the return of individual responsibility. After all, at present cops are basically immune from ANYTHING they do while wearing a badge.

Bionic-Badger said:

In this case, however, that dog was in a threatening posture, and yes, a threatening posture is grounds for a takedown.

Click to expand...

^^^Agreed with everything else, but this.

A threatening posture or gesture is not IMO grounds for an execution. Fire at the ground, scare it off, or use a taser at the most, but shooting it was excessive to say the least. If they had to shoot, shoot once to incapacitate in the leg or shoulder, but dont shoot three times and watch it reel in pain before it dies. That is not humane and was totally uncalled for.

From what I could see in the video the dog jumped up, but I couldnt see it actually trying to savage the officer. Were their clothes ripped to shreds, was the officer really in danger. Perhaps look at the startled reaction of the colleagues to gauge that one. Either way I dont think it was anywhere near life and death.

I guess I come from a country, where that would not be considered normal behaviour...

Edit: IE summed it up nicely +1

Bionic-Badger said:

The guy being arrested should have rolled up the windows more or tied the dog down. Though I don't blame the dog for trying to protect his master, it is a dangerous situation to have a dog like that going after someone.

Click to expand...

Personally I think he should have considered the welfare of the dog before engaging in any kind of activity.

I haven't read up on this situation since yesterday, but IIRC he did also yell something to the cops, and approached them before what you see in the video. There was something else going on there first, and the cops were on high alert.

Also you do see he put the dog in the car. To me it appeared as if he considered leaving altogether, but did not go for the drivers seat or to open the car door, because of the cops said anything to him... it would appear as if he was fleeing, which is of course something you can be arrested for. I suspect that on seeing the cops come over he was expecting to be questioned, not arrested.

I do agree the media, and viral stories are key to keeping any kind of repression in check.

BB, Grainde, you guys may enjoy reading through this website... PINAC | Photography is Not a Crime

I'm not really a photographer in any sense of the word, but it was certainly eye opening to me.

WTF FUCKING AMERICAN COPS. This is so disgusting!

Apparently the police department is quite familiar with the man in question....

Video Shows Hawthorne Police Arresting Man, Killing His Dog

Rosby Complaint

grainde said:

...shoot once to incapacitate in the leg or shoulder, but dont shoot three times and watch it reel in pain before it dies...

Click to expand...

Times Square Shooting: Why Police Shoot To Kill - Business Insider

Regardless of what you think about the (nationwide AFAIK) policy, that officer followed it.

And, for argument's sake, let's say that he put the animal out of its misery during the spasms, and emptied his entire clip into it, people would go crazy that it was excessive.

That position held by some police says they should finish it off. IMO they needn't empty the clip, just one shot to the head, deliberate and aimed.

thanks as always LB

no but there are certain aspects that we can take from them to learn. yes the dog was protecting its owner but it still attacked the officers therefore they had a reason to shoot it.

youre right on specific breeds. A Chiwawa is hardly a threat but a big dog like a Rottweiler can do some serious damage. This is a storm in a teacup and there are better things to worry about like the violence in Somalia and other 3rd world countries...

NKO29 said:

youre right on specific breeds. A Chiwawa is hardly a threat but a big dog like a Rottweiler can do some serious damage. This is a storm in a teacup and there are better things to worry about like the violence in Somalia and other 3rd world countries...

Click to expand...

And why is that better to worry about please elaborate.

grainde said:

^^^Agreed with everything else, but this.

A threatening posture or gesture is not IMO grounds for an execution. Fire at the ground, scare it off, or use a taser at the most, but shooting it was excessive to say the least. If they had to shoot, shoot once to incapacitate in the leg or shoulder, but dont shoot three times and watch it reel in pain before it dies. That is not humane and was totally uncalled for.

Click to expand...

A rottweiler-looking dog jumping at him? I'd definitely call that threatening. x The cop didn't fire just because the dog was staring at him. The dog jumped at him. Is he supposed to give the dog hit arm to bite?

Also one or three shots? What really is the difference? You shoot something to kill something. There is no middle ground. One or three shots, the purpose is exactly the same. Forget about just "injuring" the dog. That's something you do if you have a long lead-up time. However, you're not going to have time to place your shot, point blank, on a jumping dog in order to just injure it. An injured dog may also be just as dangerous, and even after being shot three times the dog in the video was still alive and kicking. The real tragedy of the dog's gun-injury was that the dog didn't die immediately, but did have to suffer for a time before death. It's the reason why hollow point bullets are required for hunting.

Most of these kinds of feelings come from analysis after the event occurs. For example, there are people who complain that cops shouldn't have taken down some guy wielding a toy pistol threateningly because only after the incident it is known that it is a toy. Before that fact is known, however, the situation is entirely different, and there is no time to inspect whether the object is a toy or the real thing.

From what I could see in the video the dog jumped up, but I couldnt see it actually trying to savage the officer. Were their clothes ripped to shreds, was the officer really in danger. Perhaps look at the startled reaction of the colleagues to gauge that one. Either way I dont think it was anywhere near life and death.

Click to expand...

Give. Me. A. Break.

So now you only shoot an attacking dog once it's at the point of shredding your clothing? Or maybe causing grievous injuries? That's just stupid. I don't think even you would abide by that standard for yourself. What next, only shooting gun wielding attackers when they manage to hit you? Let's get back to reality here. We act on threats in order to prevent injury or death.

I guess I come from a country, where that would not be considered normal behaviour...

Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't fault your country for being that obtuse.

InfinitusEquitas said:

Personally I think he should have considered the welfare of the dog before engaging in any kind of activity.

Click to expand...

The welfare of the dog only came up in the seconds after the dog got loose, started threatening the officer, and then tried to leap. Prior to that point the only "activity" of interest was arresting that the guy who owned the dog; the dog was entirely irrelevant up to that point. Hell, the fact that the dog got loose at all was because the owner didn't even secure the dog properly.

Whatever measured response was possible occurred when the dog got loose. Really, if a dog like that was jumping at me I'd shoot it too, because you just don't know how that dog is trained, or how it will react. It's also not a small dog, and looks like a rottweiler (not sure if it is, but it looks like one).

I haven't read up on this situation since yesterday, but IIRC he did also yell something to the cops, and approached them before what you see in the video. There was something else going on there first, and the cops were on high alert.

Click to expand...

Well the guy was being an idiot, but that didn't really factor into the reasons behind shooting the dog, besides maybe him not properly securing his dog. If we want to question whether this citizen should have been arrested in the first place, that's an entirely different issue.

Also you do see he put the dog in the car. To me it appeared as if he considered leaving altogether, but did not go for the drivers seat or to open the car door, because of the cops said anything to him... it would appear as if he was fleeing, which is of course something you can be arrested for. I suspect that on seeing the cops come over he was expecting to be questioned, not arrested.

Click to expand...

Whatever his owner did, it was a tragedy for the dog. However, I don't consider the officer's response to the dog's actions incorrect. These are snap decisions, and the dog was leaping at the officer and could cause him harm. It wasn't like those incidents when an officer barges into a house, shoots the dog because it's barking loudly, but not aggressively. The video clearly depicts the dog leaping at the officer, and it's good we have the video so we can see the evidence first hand.