• 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)

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.

If he was arrested for video taping, and not charged with that statute (which he wasn't) then its a cover up is it not?
 
If he was arrested for video taping, and not charged with that statute (which he wasn't) then its a cover up is it not?

So now we're debating about whether or not I'm a conspiracy theorist?

Get a life.
 
Just like the numbers I gave also include children killed by firearms.

:rofl

Grown men have a distinct advantage over children when facing a dog attack. The advantage is much smaller when it comes to firearms.
 
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.
There was never a cover up.
 
:rofl

Grown men have a distinct advantage over children when facing a dog attack. The advantage is much smaller when it comes to firearms.

why do you keep putting this idea forward that people have an obligation to be attacked by dogs before responding to obviously aggressive behavior and that dog attacks may be ok because there is a chance they might not be fatal?

Does this seriously strike you as a well thought out argument?
 
why do you keep putting this idea forward that people have an obligation to be attacked by dogs before responding to obviously aggressive behavior and that dog attacks may be ok because there is a chance they might not be fatal?

Does this seriously strike you as a well thought out argument?

I'm thinking that if the cop hesitated and allowed himself (an others) to be bitten by the Rotty, he'd be in trouble. Procedure, I am sure, demanded that he shoot.
 
I'm thinking that if the cop hesitated and allowed himself (an others) to be bitten by the Rotty, he'd be in trouble. Procedure, I am sure, demanded that he shoot.
And if a cop had actually been bitten, not only would the other cops have shot the dog anyway but the owner would be facing jail and heavy fines.
 
None. It not really that common...... but more common than shooting a person.

Sure. Avoid them if you can. But in some situations you can't avoid the dog. If a dog becomes a threat, you don't taze, you don't pepper spray, you shoot. If they are aggressive but staying back, you warn the owner that they need to control their dog (if the situation permits) and let them know that if the dog attacks you, you will be forced to shoot it.

Other than that... no.... we don't deal with anything other than that.

In this situation, don't you think a little common sense could have been exercised on both sides? Of course the owner shouldn't have ran his mouth. He should have secured the dog properly. But couldn't the police have given the owner a chance to control his dog? It's not like he was being detained for a felony.
 
I think lunging at people and charging them would account for aggression. In fact, even the owner of the dog, a person much more familier than you, commented on his aggressive behavior.

The dog died needlessly. The owner was irresponsible by not securing the dog properly in the car. The police saw a big dog and it wasn't being docile and immediately got their hackles up so to speak. The officers could have handled it differently without having to kill the dog and still not getting hurt.
 
The dog died needlessly. The owner was irresponsible by not securing the dog properly in the car. The police saw a big dog and it wasn't being docile and immediately got their hackles up so to speak. The officers could have handled it differently without having to kill the dog and still not getting hurt.

The way I see the video the dog was being aggressive with the officer and lunging at him. I think what the cop did was fine. I would have probably done the same thing.
 
The dog wouldn't have tried defending its owner if the police weren't abusing their power. 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.

Note that the dog owner was recording the police with his phone, something that the police no longer allow. Funny that there was a second person recording the recorder from across the street.

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.

The police were well within their right to detain the man. This was not an abuse of power.
 
In this situation, don't you think a little common sense could have been exercised on both sides? Of course the owner shouldn't have ran his mouth. He should have secured the dog properly. But couldn't the police have given the owner a chance to control his dog? It's not like he was being detained for a felony.
They did give him the chance. They waited for him to put his dog in his car, which he did. That was his chance.
 
On what exactly?

Background: Leon Rosby has pending civil cases against the Hothorn police department. Leon Rosby's prior record includes convictions for resisting arrest, battery and driving under the influence. Rosby, a black man, has filed six complaints alleging mistreatment and racial profiling by the Hawthorn Police. It seems Mr. Rosby is a bit of a vigilantly. Based on his history it is my opinion that he went to this police action so as to cause an incident so that he can bring more civil actions against the police.

The arrest:
  • Leon Rosby was shouting various comments like "where all 'da black cops at" at the perimeter of a barricade.
  • Leon Rosby was asked to keep his distance from the barricade (I believe in CA you have to stay around 30ft back but I can't verify that number) and refused to comply.
  • Leon Rosby had this song set to repeat from his car at a loud volume. Leon Rosby was asked to turn down his music and refused to comply. Hawthorne police Lt. Scott Swain to the Daily Breeze: "It's interfering with what they are able to hear. It's not just a party call. It's an armed robbery call. The officers need to hear what's going on with the people being called out of the residence. That music in his car is bleeding over and it's distracting them,”...
It is my opinion that the arrest was justified.

The shooting: It appears the officer was trying to get control of the dog by grabbing it's collar. IMO reaching for the collar is not the best idea, but I believe cops are required to make a reasonable attempt to control the animal before trying to shoot it.

000.jpg


In reaction to the legally required attempt, the dog lunged at the cop:

9.jpg


The owner stepped forward and gave the command "Max, stop".

8.jpg


Then the cop tried to reach for the dog's collar again:

7.jpg


In reaction, the dog lunged at the cop again:

6.jpg


And then the dog was shot 4 times in one second.


It is my opinion that the shooting was justified. Frankly I would have shot the dog as it approached from the car.


References:
Update:
 
Last edited:
why do you keep putting this idea forward that people have an obligation to be attacked by dogs before responding to obviously aggressive behavior and that dog attacks may be ok because there is a chance they might not be fatal?

Does this seriously strike you as a well thought out argument?

I didn't say that people are obliged to be attacked by dogs. These officers weren't attacked by the dog. None of the officers were injured by the dog. They were justified because they were scared. Are regular civilians allowed to shoot any unrestrained dog they come across because they are scared?

My argument is solid because I understand dog behavior. If that dog was so aggressive that he would kill a grown man, he would have immediately jumped on them a bit and shook. This dog did not do that. He was warning the police and telling them that he didn't like the situation.
 
The way I see the video the dog was being aggressive with the officer and lunging at him. I think what the cop did was fine. I would have probably done the same thing.

He was warning the officer. I am sure you would have shot the dog too.
 
He was warning the officer. I am sure you would have shot the dog too.

It's an animal, I'm not putting my safety at risk by trusting in dog psychology. Human life > animal life. He was within his rights to defend himself. Personally I would have probably waited until it was snapping at me or trying to bite me, but either way it was justified self defense.
 
It's an animal, I'm not putting my safety at risk by trusting in dog psychology. Human life > animal life. He was within his rights to defend himself. Personally I would have probably waited until it was snapping at me or trying to bite me, but either way it was justified self defense.

I'm not scared to be bitten by a dog. Unless it was lunging for my throat, I could handle whatever it did.

It's funny, cops get all scared and worried about their safety when they might get bitten by a dog. But when it's their dog doing the biting, it's not considered "lethal force".
 
Any dog would behave like that. Barking at close range is not aggression, at least not violent aggression.

Barking, growling, ears back, hind quarters tucked down, jowls forward . . . all these things are signs of aggression and/or fear.

Dogs attack for several reasons.
#1: fear of the unknown (people, situation)
#2: threat against self
#3: threat against owner
#4: territorial displays

Dogs can attack at a moment's notice with few signals - their actions were warranted.

If the dog was trained properly by the owner he could have given it the command to sit - stay - etc . . . but he didn't bother training his dog for any reason. Animals aren't shields for humans - people can't just have a dog and get away with whatever behaviors they want.
 
The dog died needlessly. The owner was irresponsible by not securing the dog properly in the car. The police saw a big dog and it wasn't being docile and immediately got their hackles up so to speak. The officers could have handled it differently without having to kill the dog and still not getting hurt.

wasn't being docile? It charged at them until someone took a more assertive stance then eventually lunged at an officer. Secondly, the officer did try to grab the dog, twice I think, so I am unsure what else you expect them to do.
 
Nor ignorance about dog behavior.

there was clear aggressive behavior from the dog. This was even asserted to by the owner and is clearly visible from the film. Again, are you just wasting peoples time, or are you dishonest?
 
On what exactly?

maybe watch the video, read about the guy causing disturbances at an active crime scene? You know, gather some factual basis to form an opinion
 
I didn't say that people are obliged to be attacked by dogs. These officers weren't attacked by the dog. None of the officers were injured by the dog. They were justified because they were scared. Are regular civilians allowed to shoot any unrestrained dog they come across because they are scared?

You're being dishonest. This was not some random animal just walking down the street, this was a dog exibiting clearly aggressive behavior and lunging at people

My argument is solid

as a beer fart

because I understand dog behavior.

no, you clearly do not


If that dog was so aggressive that he would kill a grown man, he would have immediately jumped on them a bit and shook.

He did immediately charge, as can be seen from the video. He stopped when one of the officers took a more assertive stance

secondly, aggression is not simply shown on some binary scale as you claim.


He was warning the police and telling them that he didn't like the situation.

that's aggressive behavior, champ ...
 
Back
Top Bottom