• 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)

Ahh yes, i forgot it was illegal to take a video on a public street and speak to a police officer. What an awful guy. :rolls eyes:
 
As for the arrest/cuffing, I think they made the man's point if he had asked why are their no black officers. There was no basis whatsoever to cuff the man. Zero.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps there just was not a black officer available at that point in time. In no way does it mean the PD had no black officers.
 
Ahh yes, i forgot it was illegal to take a video on a public street and speak to a police officer. What an awful guy. :rolls eyes:

Again, why not just educate yourself
 
I already addressed them with you.

your details, if I recall correctly, dealt with rather unrealistic expectations that the cops should have reviewed how the dog was restrained by it's owner, prior to making an arrest, in the context of an active crime scene involving an armed assailant, and endangering their health to put an aggressive dog under control?

I'm not sure citing already debunked and ill-formed notions amount to details here
 
The most important detail was that the police were in the middle of arresting a suspect held up in a house, who was potentially dangerous. The dog owner shows up, blasting his car radio. He was told to turn it off, since it was interfering with their attempts to resolve the matter peacefully. He refused. So afterwards they arrested him and his dog attacked.

Are you aware of some other relevant details?

I believe the music was only an excuse by the PD. Why did they not calmly go up to him and ask that he turn down the music, else he could face arrest? I believe the real reason for his arrest was for filming the scene. Cops are big on intimidating citizens who take pictures/film them.

On the dog, even if an arrest was justified, why did the cops not make sure the dog was secured? They should be trained for those kinds of situations. The person was cooperative, they could have had him roll up the windows or at least take the suspect to an area where the dog could not see what was going on.
 
your details, if I recall correctly, dealt with rather unrealistic expectations that the cops should have reviewed how the dog was restrained by it's owner, prior to making an arrest, in the context of an active crime scene involving an armed assailant, and endangering their health to put an aggressive dog under control?

I'm not sure citing already debunked and ill-formed notions amount to details here

No one debunked anything I said.

1. The cops knew he had a big dog with him. It is completely reasonable for a cop trained for this to assess the situation and expect them to make sure the dog is secure before making an arrest of a cooperative suspect.

2. The cops who arrested him were just walking up and down the street. They were not actively/directly involved in the gun suspect situation.

3. I don't know what happened prior to the video, but they could have walked up to him and like civilized cops ask that he turn down the music or else he may be arrested.
 
I believe the music was only an excuse by the PD. Why did they not calmly go up to him and ask that he turn down the music

According to an eyewitness they did. He responded by saying something like "it was his ****ing stereo"


"On the dog, even if an arrest was justified, why did the cops not make sure the dog was secured?"

the owner for all observable purposes, did secure the dog. And the cops are in the middle of an active crime scene, where they can't be expected to micromanage pet owners exercising due diligence over their pets


Again, your demands and expectations are totally unreasonable
 
No one debunked anything I said.

you simply ignoring peoples replies does not mean they do not address your points
 
The dog wouldn't have tried defending its owner if the police weren't abusing their power.
Because dogs know the extend of police powers.... :roll:

Their detainment of the dog owner was unjustified and uncalled for... but in present day America, police can arrest you for next to anything, and ask questions later. Sad.
I take it you know very little of what police can do. You do, however, have much rage against law enforcement.... whether that is justified or not remains a question.


Note that the dog owner was recording the police with his phone, something that the police no longer allow.
Recording them didn't seem to be the problem. But way to make new ones and ASSumptions.
Funny that there was a second person recording the recorder from across the street.
And this comment adds nothing. The police may have seen the other person recording who was not causing a disturbance while they were trying to work.

This is why citizens should always have the right to record police action. If the police aren't abusing power then they have nothing to worry about.
Way to interject your own wrong explanation and run with it hero...
 
Perhaps there just was not a black officer available at that point in time. In no way does it mean the PD had no black officers.

A police department is not required to have a certain number of particular race officers on particular calls at particular times anyways.

The mans complaints were just race baiting retardednesss.
 
I believe the music was only an excuse by the PD. Why did they not calmly go up to him and ask that he turn down the music, else he could face arrest? I believe the real reason for his arrest was for filming the scene. Cops are big on intimidating citizens who take pictures/film them.

On the dog, even if an arrest was justified, why did the cops not make sure the dog was secured? They should be trained for those kinds of situations. The person was cooperative, they could have had him roll up the windows or at least take the suspect to an area where the dog could not see what was going on.

You can believe all you want to believe........ people are going to do it in regards to law enforcement anyways.

Law Enforcement no longer cares about your conspiracies regarding their actions....
 
Only if you want to approach this in a biased manner.

Just the opposite. I began by watching the video with a biased view against the cops, but after seeing what really happened, I changed my mind. THe cops did what they had to do. I blame the dog owner. His irresponsible behavior resulted in the dog being shot.
 
Because dogs know the extend of police powers.... :roll:

I take it you know very little of what police can do. You do, however, have much rage against law enforcement.... whether that is justified or not remains a question.


Recording them didn't seem to be the problem. But way to make new ones and ASSumptions.
And this comment adds nothing. The police may have seen the other person recording who was not causing a disturbance while they were trying to work.

Way to interject your own wrong explanation and run with it hero...

The fact is - and you can't deny this - they pursued the man with the dog because he was recording them and shouting things at them. Neither is a cause for detainment. The entire incident would not have happened if the person's First Amendment rights were protected.

I'm not enraged at all, I'm just stating an obvious fact. But I know you're (former?) law enforcement, so you will have an obvious bias.
 
The fact is - and you can't deny this - they pursued the man with the dog because he was recording them and shouting things at them. Neither is a cause for detainment. The entire incident would not have happened if the person's First Amendment rights were protected.

I'm not enraged at all, I'm just stating an obvious fact. But I know you're (former?) law enforcement, so you will have an obvious bias.

I can't deny that aliens didn't come down and make the arrest either if we are looking at made up conspiracies.......
 
I can't deny that aliens didn't come down and make the arrest either if we are looking at made up conspiracies.......

Anyone who calls a simple and obvious argument a conspiracy theory lacks the competency or will power to make an effective counter-argument.

I accept your concession.
 
Anyone who calls a simple and obvious argument a conspiracy theory obviously lacks the competency or will power to make an effective counter-argument.

I accept your concession.

Oh joy..... The boy who crowned himself king.

Have at it boss.
 
The fact is - and you can't deny this - they pursued the man with the dog because he was recording them and shouting things at them. Neither is a cause for detainment. The entire incident would not have happened if the person's First Amendment rights were protected.

I'm not enraged at all, I'm just stating an obvious fact. But I know you're (former?) law enforcement, so you will have an obvious bias.
During an active negotiation with an armed robber, yeah, it's completely justified. Don't go to active crime scenes and be an ass or the dick police will **** you.
 
During an active negotiation with an armed robber, yeah, it's completely justified. Don't go to active crime scenes and be an ass or the dick police will **** you.

I can accept this argument.

See Caine? It wasn't that hard.
 
I can accept this argument.

See Caine? It wasn't that hard.

You created a conspiracy theory and acted as if it were true..........

Ain't nobody got time fo dat.
 
A police department is not required to have a certain number of particular race officers on particular calls at particular times anyways.

The mans complaints were just race baiting retardednesss.

according to the census, african americans represent less than 1% of the population there.
 
The fact is - and you can't deny this - they pursued the man with the dog because he was recording them and shouting things at them. Neither is a cause for detainment. The entire incident would not have happened if the person's First Amendment rights were protected.

I'm not enraged at all, I'm just stating an obvious fact. But I know you're (former?) law enforcement, so you will have an obvious bias.

eye witness accounts have the police asking him to turn down his stereo, because it was interfering with their efforts to resolve and armed conflict, and his response being an expletive. Also, there were claims he crossed the police barrier and accusations that he interfered in other ways ....
 
You created a conspiracy theory and acted as if it were true..........

Ain't nobody got time fo dat.

A conspiracy theory involves a cover up with widespread implications. My original claim was that rights were infringed upon. Apples and oranges.

Check your definitions before you try to discredit someone. Just because I disagreed with you about what went down, does not mean I'm fabricating anything that isn't be inferred from watching the video.
 
Back
Top Bottom