• 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)

The owner did the right thing by putting the dog in the car. If you watch the video in full you would see the dog forcing its way through a partially opened window. The cops knew the dog was there and should have made sure he was completely secure before doing anything at all. At worst, give the man a ticket.

in the video you can clearly see some of the windows are fully down
 
I agree it was probably an honest mistake, but I think that is a little different than outright negligence. Meh, semantics.

Anyways, judging from the video evidence, do you think an arrest was necessary?

No, judging ONLY from the video evidence, I don't, but then as is usual in these things, the video evidence probably doesn't tell the whole story. I refuse to believe, regardless how corrupt a police force may be, that police in the middle of a serious takedown, in the middle of the day, in daylight, with witnesses, are going to decide to just mosey on over and harass and arrest an innocent man who's minding his own business. That idea has no credibility in my view.
 
1)How does your post make sense within the context of what I am replying to? FYI: I am replying to someone asking why the cops didn't attempt non-lethal measures. My reply was why should they, or anyone else, risk personal injury to secure a dog they are not responsible for?

My response was in context. I said the cops did not have to endanger themselves by going anywhere near the dog. They could have had the owner do that.

2) the dog was lunging at them and the entire confrontation lasted about a half minute

I am talking about before physically apprehending the man.
 
Listing to the people who were making the video....the whole reason they were recording this guy in the first place is because he was making a scene and they were enjoying it.

Yeah, the entire purpose in being there seems to have been to cause a scene. ****, I hate cops, but if you go out looking for trouble don't be surprised when you find it
 
He probably knew it is considered illegal in many areas to record/film a crime scene and so expected an arrest. Many people, especially the black community, are very much aware of this ridiculous law. That, or he was intentionally being dramatic for the camera.

Could be - I didn't see him filming anything, but it's hard to tell - he was being filmed, however, so I presume there's more video evidence out there which will likely come to light. In addition, I believe when police are conducting this type of raid or takedown, they usually have police filming the action as well for evidence and self defense.
 
The dog has to make a threatening motion unprovoked. That dog was provoked.
I believe the dog felt provoked. The cop was not trying to provoke the dog, though, and that makes the difference. The dog should have been properly secured in the first place, or not brought along at all.

Cops just like to kill and shoot dogs considering 50% of all weapon discharges done by cops are towards dogs.
As they say on Wiki: [sup][citation needed][/sup]

DoJ has laid down the law on this as well. According to DoJ policy for Police Officers.. "When responding to aggressive dogs, cops should first try using tranquilizer guns, chemical repellents, and batons. Police might even try scaring dogs with a fast-opening umbrella."
I didn't see any tranquilizer guns, batons or umbrellas on the cops, and I can't tell if they had tazers.

What does DoJ say about bringing a dog to a place where you intend to become a public nuisance? What does DoJ say about how to properly secure your animal?
 
in the video you can clearly see some of the windows are fully down

I watched the video again. It was clear that the left rear window was mostly down. The side the dog jumped out of was less clear but obviously enough for the dog to crawl/jump out of. In any case, not only was it dumb for the cops to arrest a cooperative man in front of his own dog, but it was dumb to not at least have the man make sure the dog was secured.
 
My response was in context.

No it wasn't. I just explained the context to you and it had absolutely nothing to do with the point I was responding to

I said the cops did not have to endanger themselves by going anywhere near the dog. They could have had the owner do that.

the point I am replying to already assumes the dog is loose and acting aggressively ...



I am talking about before physically apprehending the man.

1) no ****. Which is why you should pay attention to context

2) I responded to that as well: as far as they were aware, the owner, who is the one responsible for such things, apparently did so. But did so in an irresponsible and negligent manner.
 
The only thing the dog was guilty of is defending his owner. An owner that IMHO did not have to be arrested or manhandled that way, especially not by a police force that already has a bad reputation and name.
That was a pretty standard arrest. Nothing excessive about it at all.
 
No, judging ONLY from the video evidence, I don't, but then as is usual in these things, the video evidence probably doesn't tell the whole story. I refuse to believe, regardless how corrupt a police force may be, that police in the middle of a serious takedown, in the middle of the day, in daylight, with witnesses, are going to decide to just mosey on over and harass and arrest an innocent man who's minding his own business. That idea has no credibility in my view.

Cops arrest people for filming all the time. Daytime or nighttime. The law protects them so they have no need to worry.
 
Could be - I didn't see him filming anything, but it's hard to tell - he was being filmed, however, so I presume there's more video evidence out there which will likely come to light. In addition, I believe when police are conducting this type of raid or takedown, they usually have police filming the action as well for evidence and self defense.

Oh yeah, police do lots of filming. But they don't like it very much when a pedestrian does it. May catch them in a not-so-legal act. :)
 
He was arrested for filming a crime scene though he was behind barricades. Should not be a crime. And, of course, it isn't when cops do it themselves...

Hypocrites.
Police arrested Leon Rosby, 52, near the scene of a SWAT barricade in Hawthorne, California. Officers were responding to an armed robbery, and claimed Rosby was disturbing the crime scene by playing loud music and videotaping the showdown with his cell phone.


They had asked me why am I there?” Rosby later told NBC4. “And I said I was filming them so that no one’s civil rights were being violated.”


Cell phone video from a witness shows Rosby walking his dog while watching the police response to the robbery. The Usher song “Tell Me Again” was playing on repeat in his parked rental car, which had the windows rolled down.


Police claim that Rosby ignored their first request to turn down the music. Hawthorne police Lt. Scott Swain told the Daily Breeze that it interfered with their response to the robbery. A neighbor claims that Rosby cursed at police in response – a statement that the 52-year-old denies.

Cops arrest California man for filming them and then kill his dog (VIDEO) ? RT USA
.....
 
Well, Canada is a little more sane compared to much of the US. :lol:

We've actually had multiple private video used in trials both against the police and in support of the police from the "riots" during the G20 a couple of summers ago. Social/private video is the norm here now - bus drivers acting bad, cops parking in handicapped spots, etc. - you name it, any government employee acting bad can be assured that someone is snapping it or filming it these days. And if that doesn't catch them, the abundance of security video everywhere will likely help. We've had a number of police officers charged and convicted in the past couple of years as a result.
 
Yeah, the entire purpose in being there seems to have been to cause a scene. ****, I hate cops, but if you go out looking for trouble don't be surprised when you find it
Having grown up in CA I can attest to the fact that many cops in CA are dicks. I also know that there's a very reason why they become dicks, and this guy with his dog is a fine example.
 
As more details emerge, seems outrage is going to shift - unless, of course, President Obama claims that the dog reminded him of Bo and he believes the police acted stupidly.
Obama: "If I had a dog, this is what he would look like"
 
No it wasn't. I just explained the context to you and it had absolutely nothing to do with the point I was responding to



the point I am replying to already assumes the dog is loose and acting aggressively ...





1) no ****. Which is why you should pay attention to context

My bad. I did not read the previous poster's comment in full.
 
I'm certainly no lawyer or legal expert, but it is my understanding that while police often claim that such recording is illegal, it in fact almost never is.:cool:

They often abuse outdated eavesdropping laws to arrest, fine, and destroy citizen property.
 
Why, the dog is not where they are actively dealing with the guy, and they saw the owner secure it. All they know is that he secured it, but within a minute or two it starts charging them

Are you kidding? The dog was only a few yards away. Took only a couple seconds for the dog to reach them.



lol, what is your next expectation, that they go door to door making sure people are properly restraining their animals before they conduct an arrest? Your demands are totally unrealistic and place responsibility away from the very person it rests on: the dog owner

Are police making arrests door-to-door? No. But when it comes to cooperative suspects, such as with this case, it is completely reasonable to ask them to secure their pet.
 
And you know they didn't do this already how?

Because they were no where near the man, police doesn't often yell from half a street away.
 
In the video, there were people standing on a front lawn as the two police officers approach the guy with the dog - the police pass them first - why didn't the police arrest or harass those people if the police were just targeting innocent people because that's what the local police do?

Because they might not have filmed the officers from a relatively close distance, maybe they did not film them or comment on why there where no black officers.
 
Listing to the people who were making the video....the whole reason they were recording this guy in the first place is because he was making a scene and they were enjoying it.

From the video I saw he was not making much more of a scene than any of the others. He was closer to the barricade and going back and forth with his camera, but there was nothing worthy of arrest in that.
 
That was a pretty standard arrest. Nothing excessive about it at all.

Except maybe for the fact that there may have been no grounds at all to even handcuff the man, let alone arrest him.
 
Back
Top Bottom