• 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:
I don't know the full details of the arrest, hence wy I am not commenting on that. But regardless of it, it's up to the dog owner to secure his animal.

Hell, people like that ****head are the reasons why dog attacks happen in most cases: "derp, I am going to put my dog in the car with the windows down"
Click to expand...

And if he had left the dog without the windows open he would have been subject to arrest for leaving the dog without an open window. I have not fully seen it, but if the window had been wide open the dog would have jumped out immediately, he jumped out after they started manhandling the man. Maybe the pushed down the window (he was a heavy dog) or jumped on the handle with which you roll down the window, giving him enough room to get out.
 
Jerry said:
You don't have to wait for the dog to get ahold of you. You can shoot it before hand. I know because I shot a dog that was about to attack me and went though the legal motions.
Click to expand...

The dog has to make a threatening motion unprovoked. That dog was provoked. Cops just like to kill and shoot dogs considering 50% of all weapon discharges done by cops are towards dogs.

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."
 
Last edited:
Dr. Chuckles said:
Seems the dog owner should have secured his mutt
Click to expand...

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.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I absolutely love dogs, all dogs, but I have to say that the owner of the dog is negligent here
Click to expand...

He put the dog in the car to keep it away from the cops and peacefully surrendered. He was far from 'negligent.'
 
Jerry said:
He was shouting verious comments like "where all 'da black cops at" at the perimeter of a barricade.
Click to expand...

That is not why he was arrested. He was arrested for filming.
 
ocean515 said:
What isn't being reported is how the dog's owner has issues with the Hawthorne Police for a very long time.



Apparently this isn't the first time that Rosby has had issues with the local police. His 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.

Read more: Police shoot and kill Rottweiler in the street when the dog runs over to owner being arrested for obstruction of justice | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook​
Click to expand...

None of which have anything to do with the topic being discussed.
 
Peter King said:
The only thing the dog was guilty of is defending his owner.
Click to expand...

So you agree it was acting aggressively?


An owner that IMHO did not have to be arrested or manhandled that way
Click to expand...

But still has a duty to secure his dog

especially not by a police force that already has a bad reputation and name.
Click to expand...

look, if they just ran up and tackled him while walking the dog you could justifiably criticize the police for the dogs reaction. But here we have a guy clearly attempting to secure his dog prior to the interactions of the cops, but does not accomplish this because he puts his dog in a car with the windows down.

The fact that his dog is running loose and acting aggressively is fully his fault. Dog owners, especially those of large aggressive breeds need to be responsible.

This man was not
 
Geoist said:
He put the dog in the car to keep it away from the cops and peacefully surrendered. He was far from 'negligent.'
Click to expand...

the car had it's windows down far enough that the dog was able to easily escape. That is negligence
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
the car had it's windows down far enough that the dog was able to easily escape. That is negligence
Click to expand...

Not putting the dog in the car would have been negligence. Mistakes can happen though without being negligent. I believe that is the case here.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
look, if they just ran up and tackled him while walking the dog you could justifiably criticize the police for the dogs reaction. But here we have a guy clearly attempting to secure his dog prior to the interactions of the cops, but does not accomplish this because he puts his dog in a car with the windows down.

The fact that his dog is running loose and acting aggressively is fully his fault. Dog owners, especially those of large aggressive breeds need to be responsible.

This man was not
Click to expand...

Couldn't we say then that the officers were negligent by not making sure the dog was fully secured before arresting the man? They knew the dog was there.
 
I know this...if it were my dog they shot...the amount of pure rage that would course through my veins would force them to shoot me as well. If they didn't kill me...they would wish they had
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
So you agree it was acting aggressively?
Click to expand...

My first post:

Now the dog might have been a threat,

I also wrote:

I am not saying that when it lunged it was not justified that the officer took actions to protect himself.

The dog was defending his owner, who for his feeling was under attack from people he did not trust. There were loads of non-lethal actions the officers could have taken which I mentioned in an earlier post. The officer should have never tried to take the lead or the collar, if the dog had been that much of a threat, how do you explain his actions in taking the collar.


Dr. Chuckles said:
But still has a duty to secure his dog
Click to expand...

Yes and he did for the purpose of being asked a few questions by police, I doubt the man immediately thought he would be handcuffed or manhandled.

Dr. Chuckles said:
look, if they just ran up and tackled him while walking the dog you could justifiably criticize the police for the dogs reaction. But here we have a guy clearly attempting to secure his dog prior to the interactions of the cops, but does not accomplish this because he puts his dog in a car with the windows down.

The fact that his dog is running loose and acting aggressively is fully his fault. Dog owners, especially those of large aggressive breeds need to be responsible.

This man was not
Click to expand...

The dog broke loose only after the arrest/manhandling and did not immediately go after the cops, the cops approached the dog (most likely with good intentions but incredibly stupid nevertheless) and after that the dog looks like jumping up in the direction of the officer closest to the dogs.

In this case a lot of mistakes have been made, the man for "being black in the area of police officers, filming said officers and commenting on what he thinks is racism of the local police force (things the constitution protects) and a whole load of mistakes by the police (unwarranted arrest, not taking non-lethal measures, trying to take the collar/lead, etc. etc.).

Fact is that a dog is dead where there is no logical reason for him/her to be dead.
 
austrianecon said:
Good for you.. but would you leave an animal to suffer?
Click to expand...
Mercy killing is illegal, unles you're hunting.

The choice being either let the animal suffer or go to prison for 10 years, I'm letting the animal suffer.
 
AreteCourage said:
I know this...if it were my dog they shot...the amount of pure rage that would course through my veins would force them to shoot me as well. If they didn't kill me...they would wish they had
Click to expand...
Well that's why guns have more than 1 bullet in them.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
So you agree it was acting aggressively?




But still has a duty to secure his dog



look, if they just ran up and tackled him while walking the dog you could justifiably criticize the police for the dogs reaction. But here we have a guy clearly attempting to secure his dog prior to the interactions of the cops, but does not accomplish this because he puts his dog in a car with the windows down.

The fact that his dog is running loose and acting aggressively is fully his fault. Dog owners, especially those of large aggressive breeds need to be responsible.

This man was not
Click to expand...

Yes it does. The guy went there to make a scene and be arested. What he didn't expect was his dog being shot.
 
Geoist said:
None of which have anything to do with the topic being discussed.
Click to expand...

Of course it does. The man seen in the video has a history of negative interaction with the Hawthorne Police department. He entered into an ongoing police action scene, bringing his dog with him.

It has been reported by witnesses he was vocal at the scene.

As the video evidence shows, he was prepared to be arrested by approaching police officers.

Should they have shot his dog? I don't know. They did. It's a bad deal that the owner put his dog in a situation where the dog was only doing what it thought was right.

One thing is absolutely sure, the dog would be alive had Rosby not involved himself in a difficult scene. That's a fact.

Your attempt to testify as if you were an on scene witness to who was doing what is really the only thing that has nothing to do with the topic being discussed.
 
Geoist said:
Couldn't we say then that the officers were negligent by not making sure the dog was fully secured before arresting the man? They knew the dog was there.
Click to expand...

why would it be their responsibility? When they approached the man he did not have his dog.
 
Peter King said:
The dog was defending his owner, who for his feeling was under attack from people he did not trust. There were loads of non-lethal actions the officers could have taken which I mentioned in an earlier post.
Click to expand...


Why should anyone need to endanger themselves trying to secure an aggressive dog they are not responsible for?

Yes and he did for the purpose of being asked a few questions by police, I doubt the man immediately thought he would be handcuffed or manhandled.
Click to expand...

Again, this really has no bearing on the fact the dog was not properly secured. The cops making an arrest did not cause the window to go down, the window was already down


The dog broke loose only after the arrest/manhandling
Click to expand...

So it was clearly not properly secured. if it was properly secured, it would not be able to simply jump out the window, arrest occurring, or not


Fact is that a dog is dead where there is no logical reason for him/her to be dead.
Click to expand...

You mean besides being loose and acting aggressively?
 
The question is did they create an unnecessary situation that led to the dogs death?

Sure the man may have use poor judgement but he did not shoot the dog they did.

When we entrust them with the authority that they have it comes with the expectation that they will use good judgement and act in our best interest.
 
Interesting that the police spokesperson justified the shooting by stating they were protecting the owner and not themselves.

I also find it curious that the officer saw fit to discharge his weapon four times. Four times to down an animal in what appears to be crowded neighborhood. Makes me think the owner isn't the only potentially negligent one.

The man may have been acting like an ass but that is not illegal, nor is playing loud music in the middle of the day. He was outside the perimeter. From the video I'm not seeing a justification for the arrest. At least not one that would stand up to scrutiny.
 
Geoist said:
He put the dog in the car to keep it away from the cops and peacefully surrendered. He was far from 'negligent.'
Click to expand...

I have to disagree - it is a dog owners responsibility, at all times, to have their dog under control - that did not happen here. It was, perhaps, an honest mistake and an attempt to do the right thing, however, that doesn't change the fact that but for his not being in control of his dog, his dog is now dead.
 
Geoist said:
Not putting the dog in the car would have been negligence. Mistakes can happen though without being negligent. I believe that is the case here.
Click to expand...

Actually, again, I have to disagree - if the dog owner was innocent, as seems to be the impression, there would be no reason for him to put a well behaving dog in the car simply because two police officers were approaching him. If two police officers approach you on the street, do you automatically turn around and put your hands behind your back to be handcuffed? That's at the very least an admission that he thought he'd done something wrong.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I have to disagree - it is a dog owners responsibility, at all times, to have their dog under control - that did not happen here. It was, perhaps, an honest mistake and an attempt to do the right thing, however, that doesn't change the fact that but for his not being in control of his dog, his dog is now dead.
Click to expand...

It's an arguable point as the man was at that point in cuffs. He probably should have closed the window but its a summer day, and he's looking at spending hours, if not the day, in custody. It was. Poor decision but an understandable one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom