• 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)

Dr. Chuckles said:
well, it has been reporting that he was blasting his music at an active crime scene and refused to turn it down when asked (this according to a neighbor). And while I likely hate cops mopre than you, I can recognize why having some asshole specifically causing such a commotion at an active crime scene could be defined as "disorderly conduct", "interfering with an investigation", or "disturbing the peace"

I'm really lost on why anyone would ignore these rather glaring elements to defend this ****-dick (the dog is just as capable of attacking a child or elderly person), but here we are
Click to expand...


I would agree with you if the fellow was inside the barricades which to my mind - and I'm not cop so I'm speculating here - defines the limits of the crime scene.

You have to obey the lawful orders of the police. That's not in question. And I agree he should've lowered the radio but that doesn't appear to me to be lawful order in this case.

I have a huge problem with "disorderly conduct" style offenses because they're very often used abusively. I also have in the back in my mind that the cop may well have shot the dog simply to punish the guy.
 
Surtr said:
Judging by the number of police cars, and the assault rifle carried by one of them, there was probably some serious **** going down. They weren't arresting him, they were restraining him. It's a safety precaution. They were likely just going to ask him a few questions, run his license to make sure he didn't have any warrants, tell him to stay out of there until the situation is clear, and send him on his way.

If a large dog (especially a rottweiler or a pit) charges at me like that, I'm going to shoot it. It was clearly acting in an aggressive manner, and presented itself as a threat.
Click to expand...

You are most likely correct about the police using handcuffs to restrain him until they could determine more information about him. From the look of the neigborhood, it didn't look like a place I would take any chances either. I didn't notice the assault rifles, but if they come out then ya, something is going down.

The dog was definitely a threat. Shooting it was justified.
 
Jerry said:
That's survival.

Let him go back to his car and your "evidence" could be him firing on you. I'm not risking my neck for someone's dog.
Click to expand...

Hopefully you wouldn't be stupid enough to cause the situation in the first place, unlike the officers in the video.

And hopefully he sues the police department and makes a mint, he deserves it.
 
Geoist said:
So since we disagree you feel obligated to insult my intelligence?
Click to expand...

Not sure how my opinion can be viewed as an insult to your intelligence. You've decided you know what happened, you've rejected others observations by what can only be described as a written wave of the hand, and you've anchored your verdict on snippets of information that may, or may not, be presented in proper and complete context.

Perhaps you've insulted your own intelligence?
 
molten_dragon said:
Hopefully you wouldn't be stupid enough to cause the situation in the first place, unlike the officers in the video.

And hopefully he sues the police department and makes a mint, he deserves it.
Click to expand...
Granted I'm never going to reach for a dog, I like my fingers they open my pay check, but I would have killed the dog with the first lunge, not the second.
 
ocean515 said:
Not sure how my opinion can be viewed as an insult to your intelligence.
Click to expand...

You said I should never serve on a jury. How exactly is that not meant as an insult?

You've decided you know what happened,
Click to expand...

No, I clearly stated "based on the video evidence." I never said I knew everything that happened and my opinion could change based on the facts that are released. But I do not simply take police word as 'truth.'

you've rejected others observations by what can only be described as a written wave of the hand, and you've anchored your verdict on snippets of information that may, or may not, be presented in proper and complete context.
Click to expand...

I think it is clear this could have been better handled by both sides. But I am being especially critical of the police because they are paid by taxpayers to properly handle these kinds of situations. I don't believe they had in this case.
 
Geoist said:
You said I should never serve on a jury. How exactly is that not meant as an insult?



No, I clearly stated "based on the video evidence." I never said I knew everything that happened and my opinion could change based on the facts that are released. But I do not simply take police word as 'truth.'



I think it is clear this could have been better handled by both sides. But I am being especially critical of the police because they are paid by taxpayers to properly handle these kinds of situations. I don't believe they had in this case.
Click to expand...

Yes, based on how you have staked a position in the matter, I have suggested you never serve on a jury.

I think it's unfortunate the dog was killed. I think it's unfortunate that a man with a axe to grind put himself into a situation where his dog ended up being killed.

I've stated, in writting that I didn't know if the dog should have been killed or not. An 80 Rottweiler is potentially a lethal animal, so under the circumstances, anything could have happened. Unfortunately it did, and the dog paid the price.

What is fundementally true, is that Rosby, within his rights or not, went to the scene of police action with the intent of engaging the police. That is indesputable, and completely supported by the evidence, and by his previous actions.

The dog would be alive today, if Rosby hadn't decided to do that.
 
ocean515 said:
Yes, based on how you have staked a position in the matter, I have suggested you never serve on a jury.
Click to expand...

So because I have a different take on the event, that warrants an insult? How interesting.

I think it's unfortunate the dog was killed. I think it's unfortunate that a man with a axe to grind put himself into a situation where his dog ended up being killed.
Click to expand...

None of us know what his motives were.

I've stated, in writting that I didn't know if the dog should have been killed or not. An 80 Rottweiler is potentially a lethal animal, so under the circumstances, anything could have happened. Unfortunately it did, and the dog paid the price.
Click to expand...

And it was completely avoidable if the cops took off the blinders and were more aware of their environment.

What is fundementally true, is that Rosby, within his rights or not, went to the scene of police action with the intent of engaging the police. That is indesputable, and completely supported by the evidence, and by his previous actions.
Click to expand...

He said he was making sure no one's rights were being violated. Right now its his word vs your assumption.
 
Geoist said:
So because I have a different take on the event, that warrants an insult? How interesting.



None of us know what his motives were.



And it was completely avoidable if the cops took off the blinders and were more aware of their environment.



He said he was making sure no one's rights were being violated. Right now its his word vs your assumption.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you should grow thicker skin. My opinion.
 
ocean515 said:
I would appear you wouldn't know if I did, or did not, debate the issue.
Click to expand...

Oh but I do.

95% of posts in this thread = debate
Post #139 = trolling
 
Geoist said:
Oh but I do.

95% of posts in this thread = debate
Post #139 = trolling
Click to expand...

In your opinion...

Post #139 was my opinion based on your representation that you were the sole purveyor of truth over what occured at the scene. By indicating that you shouldn't serve on a jury, it meant you had drawn a conclusion you were defending, based on information that could hardly be considered complete, or in context.

I didn't write that you were an idiot, or a jerk.

If you can't see that, I guess that's your problem.
 
Gaius46 said:
I would agree with you if the fellow was inside the barricades which to my mind - and I'm not cop so I'm speculating here - defines the limits of the crime scene.

You have to obey the lawful orders of the police. That's not in question. And I agree he should've lowered the radio but that doesn't appear to me to be lawful order in this case.

I have a huge problem with "disorderly conduct" style offenses because they're very often used abusively. I also have in the back in my mind that the cop may well have shot the dog simply to punish the guy.
Click to expand...


from one of the articles I read my understanding is he was being arrested for actions prior to the video. Basically crossing the police lines with his dog and refusing to turn down his music. And while I share your concern with Disorderly conduct style charges, this isn't a good case to cite. being the owner is the type of asshole such laws are meant to target (being a nuisance at an active armed robbery scene)
 
Jerry said:
Granted I'm never going to reach for a dog, I like my fingers they open my pay check, but I would have killed the dog with the first lunge, not the second.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that cop tried to resolve the issue much more than most people would have
 
Geoist said:
I think it is clear this could have been better handled by both sides.
Click to expand...

The cops actions remain questionable (we don't know what occurred prior to taping, but witness testimony doesn't seem to favor the dog owner, at this point). The same can not be said of the dog owner. He failed to properly secure his animal and it tried to attack someone.


But I am being especially critical of the police because they are paid by taxpayers to properly handle these kinds of situations.
Click to expand...

How would you handle the situation? So far, your expectations seem totally unrealistic
 
I see in the video that a big, mean dog escaped from a car and began attacking a cop, who then shot the dog dead. Pretty straight forward.
 
calamity said:
I see in the video that a big, mean dog escaped from a car and began attacking a cop, who then shot the dog dead. Pretty straight forward.
Click to expand...

Yep, but the article tries to paint it like the police walked up to an innocent little puppy and unloaded every magazine they had into it before they curb stomped the owner. Huffington Post is a joke.
 
Surtr said:
Yep, but the article tries to paint it like the police walked up to an innocent little puppy and unloaded every magazine they had into it before they curb stomped the owner. Huffington Post is a joke.
Click to expand...

Yea, I'm totally lost on what people expect in this situation
 
calamity said:
I see in the video that a big, mean dog escaped from a car and began attacking a cop, who then shot the dog dead. Pretty straight forward.
Click to expand...

Only when you ignore all the other details.
 
Surtr said:
Yep, but the article tries to paint it like the police walked up to an innocent little puppy and unloaded every magazine they had into it before they curb stomped the owner. Huffington Post is a joke.
Click to expand...

HuffPo is not the only one. I saw this in the Guardian or something Brit like that with the same spin: mean cops blast innocent little puppy; stomp owner with jackboots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom