• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Police Shoot Dog, gunshots caught on graphic video (NSFW)

If they could take the time to arrest the man then they can take the time to walk up to him and talk to him. Its called being civilized... something many cops have forgotten to do.

again <<<As some, including resident Gabriel Martinez, aimed their cellphones at the scene to record it, Rosby drove up in his rented black Mazda. Swain said Rosby stopped in the intersection with music blaring from his windows. Officers told him to turn down the music because they were trying to hear what was happening down the street. Rosby pulled forward, parked and got out with his dog, but left the music still playing loudly.>>>

<<<A neighbor, who asked not to be identified, said the officers asked him to turn the music down, but he refused. Rosby, she said, responded, "It's my (expletive) radio!"

Rosby, 52, denied cursing, saying he was a Christian.

Once police arrested the suspected robber, officers motioned to Rosby and began walking toward him. Swain said they intended to arrest him and told him to put the dog in his car. He complied.>>>

Hawthorne police kill dog during arrest of owner, video of shooting goes viral - The Daily Breeze


All I know is that apparently police yelled at him from a distance. Could not make out what was said but according to the Lieutenant they were ordering him to turn down his radio.

This isn't supported by your citation


It changes it completely. Since they were not actively dealing with the armed suspect I don't see how that situation can be used as an excuse for their failures.

even with an arrest being made, it's still a chaotic and potentially dangerous environment, where the police are not fully within control.


Despite your claims from other day, they were only a few yards away from the car.

You mean where I point out they are not in the immediate area of the car? They aren't. This is why the dog has to jump out the window and run towards them
 
The cops who arrested the guy did not appear actively involved in the crime scene. It appears they were assigned to crowd control. And they failed utterly.

crowd control would be actively involved in the crime scene
 
crowd control would be actively involved in the crime scene

Not always. Sometimes minimal presence is best. Especially in these types of neighborhoods.
 
Yes, that was the actual complaint. That his music was interfering with their ability to communicate AT AN ACTIVE crime scene involving an ARMED suspect. I guess in reactive land that isn't a legitimate complaint, but in "I hate ****ing cops" land, it's enough to justify arresting the **** head. Sorry if the particulars on why that is elude you

What, did he put his headphones in the policemens ears? The police seemed to have everything under control while walking down the street to him, arresting him forcefully and shooting his dog (which I don't blame them for that thing looked scary). If there was an armed suspect at large I would want my man power focused on that, not the man "harassing" the community with his music.
 
What, did he put his headphones in the policemens ears?

I suggest looking up false dichotomy and reflecting on the fact that there are many ways playing load music could comlicate such a situation, absent forceful headphone use.

The police seemed to have everything under control while walking down the street to him

It's called a timeline , champ.


If there was an armed suspect at large I would want my man power focused on that, not the man "harassing" the community with his music.

again, you might benefit from a bit of education on the subject
 
Not always. Sometimes minimal presence is best. Especially in these types of neighborhoods.

that doesn't even make sense
 
1. The man had a fullgrown rottweiler and the cops knew it.
2. The man was cooperative with police
3. Common sense would tell you the dog would get upset if it sees its owner being arrested. Despite your claims from other day, they were only a few yards away from the car.

Thus, it is completely reasonable to expect a trained officer to take a minute and make sure the dog is secured.

Since when is blaring your music and harrassing working officers about the race of officers involved in a call and then yelling swear words at them while refusing to turn down music considered "cooperative".
 
The situation that resulted from the arrest was avoidable. Complete failure.

It was...

If the race baiting troll hadn't been there being a race baiting troll.... then the situation wouldn't have happened.

Since when do we blame someone other than the person causing the problem to begin with? What kind of society do we live in when people are quick to blame the police for the other man's childish game?
 
The situation that resulted from the arrest was avoidable.
I agree. He didn't have to choose to be a vigilante and harass the police. He didn't have to bring his dog, either. That was completely avoidable.
 
Yes, the guy was dicking around. Yes, he should have properly secured his dog when given the chance to do so or not gotten it involved in the first place.

But the police knew he had a large dog. Would the sensible option not have been to ensure that the dog was in fact secure or, upon seeing that it wasn't, order the owner to secure it properly? It's not like they didn't have enough cops around to deal with what was already going on.
 
Yes, the guy was dicking around. Yes, he should have properly secured his dog when given the chance to do so or not gotten it involved in the first place.

But the police knew he had a large dog. Would the sensible option not have been to ensure that the dog was in fact secure or, upon seeing that it wasn't, order the owner to secure it properly? It's not like they didn't have enough cops around to deal with what was already going on.

He didn't want to turn music down when asked... you think he was going to secure his dog when asked?

Pffft......
 
Would the sensible option not have been to ensure that the dog was in fact secure or, upon seeing that it wasn't, order the owner to secure it properly?
No. It's not their dog, so it's not their responsibility.
 
He didn't want to turn music down when asked... you think he was going to secure his dog when asked?

Pffft......
That's where they proceed to coercion, draw tasers in potential self-defense, etc.
 
that doesn't even make sense

They do not need to be 'actively involved' to be crowd control, unless the crowd is pushing past the barricades. They just need to be standing nearby. For these types of situations there are always cops on duty for crowd control.
 
Since when is blaring your music and harrassing working officers about the race of officers involved in a call and then yelling swear words at them while refusing to turn down music considered "cooperative".

I am talking about when the cops approached him.
 
It was...

If the race baiting troll hadn't been there being a race baiting troll.... then the situation wouldn't have happened.

Since when do we blame someone other than the person causing the problem to begin with? What kind of society do we live in when people are quick to blame the police for the other man's childish game?

I never said the man didn't deserve some of the blame. I had no problem with his supposed intent: to keep an eye on the police. More citizens should be doing that. But I do have a problem with the music part (if it was indeed too loud and the cops aren't just bsing).

The police are paid by us the taxpayers to do their job professionally and do it properly. I believe they did not do their job properly since they had their blinders on and paid no attention to the situation with the dog.
 
I agree. He didn't have to choose to be a vigilante and harass the police. He didn't have to bring his dog, either. That was completely avoidable.

Even after all that, it was still completely avoidable if the cops used some common sense about animal behavior.
 
No. It's not their dog, so it's not their responsibility.

They are police officers. If the dog is considered a potential threat then it is their responsibility.
 
...to shoot the dog.

Only if they had reasonable fear for their safety, which is not what I'm arguing here. It was their responsibility to make sure the dog was secure prior to arrest. Now they have taxpayer-funded investigation on their hands because of their failures.
 
And that's why you're wrong.

I don't think there is anything wrong in critiquing the actions of one who is paid by the taxpayer.
 
Back
Top Bottom