• 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:
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?
Click to expand...

Sounds ignit.

Not risking getting 72 stitches (still alive and not fatal) for the life of a dog.

My ole man shot his own dogs for less.
 
I'm not convinced that the police should have handcuffed the guy. He was only throwing words their way.

But that aside, I can't fault the cop for shooting. He didn't shoot until the dog lunged. If I were carrying and a dog that size lunged at me I would shoot. I'd feel like crap about it, but I would shoot. It is sad, though. Poor guy was just trying to protect his owner.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
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.
Click to expand...
A cop could use any reason to shoot a dog. "He was looking at me funny"

The real question is why they were harassing this guy in the first place.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
A cop could use any reason to shoot a dog. "He was looking at me funny"

The real question is why they were harassing this guy in the first place.
Click to expand...

The real question is why was he harassing them......

Blaring music so loud it was making it difficult for officers to communicate on the scene of a crime they were working.
Refusing to turn down said music.
Cursing at them and ****ing with the crime scene boundary.
Being a little race baiting bitch.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
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
Click to expand...

HUGE disturbance. I mean they must've not been able to do their jobs correctly.
 
iacardsfan said:
HUGE disturbance. I mean they must've not been able to do their jobs correctly.
Click to expand...

Yes, that was the actual complaint. That his music was interfering with their ability to communicate AT AN ACTIVE crime scene involving an ARMED suspect. I guess in reactive land that isn't a legitimate complaint, but in "I hate ****ing cops" land, it's enough to justify arresting the **** head. Sorry if the particulars on why that is elude you
 
RabidAlpaca said:
A cop could use any reason to shoot a dog. "He was looking at me funny"
Click to expand...

Or maybe "it's lunging at them trying to attack". Only if there was video showing the behavior of the dog, as to determine if the response was warrented.

No, I'm better off just writing random things that address nothing actually posted
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
According to an eyewitness they did. He responded by saying something like "it was his ****ing stereo"
Click to expand...

Could be wrong, but I think they yelled out from a difference, which can draw a very different reaction compared to approaching the man civilly.


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
Click to expand...

The cops who arrested him were not actively involved with the armed suspect situation.


Again, your demands and expectations are totally unreasonable
Click to expand...

As a taxpayer, I hold my police force to a certain standard. I guess mine is just higher than yours.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
you simply ignoring peoples replies does not mean they do not address your points
Click to expand...

Evidence that I have ignored replies? Also replies do not = debunking.
 
Geoist said:
Could be wrong, but I think they yelled out from a difference, which can draw a very different reaction compared to approaching the man civilly.
Click to expand...

1) it's an active crime scene involving an armed suspect. being curt is rather excusable

2) there is actually no indication of this



The cops who arrested him were not actively involved with the armed suspect situation.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how that changes the context they were operating within, nor create a need to micromanage how people secure their pets

As a taxpayer, I hold my police force to a certain standard. I guess mine is just higher than yours.
Click to expand...

or just unrealistic and unreasonable ...
 
Caine said:
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....
Click to expand...

Lol, since when did law enforcement ever care what I think?

Many police cannot stand it when they get filmed, this is a proven fact:

My Arrest for filming Milwaukee Police 5/12/12 - YouTube
Police Officer Lies and Threatens Man Video Recording Cops - YouTube
NYPD Cops get Aggressive because I'm filming them... nuts! - YouTube
 
Thorgasm said:
But couldn't the police have given the owner a chance to control his dog?
Click to expand...

Apparently it is completely unrealistic to expect a trained officer to make sure a rottweiler is secure before arresting a cooperative suspect. :lol:
 
Jerry said:
[*]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.
Click to expand...

I would like to see that law. Wouldn't surprise me if it was real. That's California for you. If they felt he was too close then maybe they should have moved the barricade further back.
 
Geoist said:
Apparently it is completely unrealistic to expect a trained officer to make sure a rottweiler is secure before arresting a cooperative suspect. :lol:
Click to expand...


they did take actions to make sure the dog was secure. They allowed the guy to put his dog in his car. Honestly, it's like you expect them to baby sit individuals in the middle of an ACTIVE CRIME SCENE.

lol
 
Geoist said:
I would like to see that law. Wouldn't surprise me if it was real. That's California for you. If they felt he was too close then maybe they should have moved the barricade further back.
Click to expand...
He was to close to the barricade, not the active crime scene. Moving the barricade doesn't change his proximity to the barricade.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
1) it's an active crime scene involving an armed suspect. being curt is rather excusable
Click to expand...

If they could take the time to arrest the man then they can take the time to walk up to him and talk to him. Its called being civilized... something many cops have forgotten to do.

2) there is actually no indication of this
Click to expand...

All I know is that apparently police yelled at him from a distance. Could not make out what was said but according to the Lieutenant they were ordering him to turn down his radio.
Police shoot and kill Rottweiler in the street when the dog runs over to owner being arrested for obstruction of justice | Mail Online


I'm not sure how that changes the context they were operating within, nor create a need to micromanage how people secure their pets
Click to expand...

It changes it completely. Since they were not actively dealing with the armed suspect I don't see how that situation can be used as an excuse for their failures.

or just unrealistic and unreasonable ...
Click to expand...

1. The man had a fullgrown rottweiler and the cops knew it.
2. The man was cooperative with police
3. Common sense would tell you the dog would get upset if it sees its owner being arrested. Despite your claims from other day, they were only a few yards away from the car.

Thus, it is completely reasonable to expect a trained officer to take a minute and make sure the dog is secured.
 
Jerry said:
He was to close to the barricade, not the active crime scene. Moving the barricade doesn't change his proximity to the barricade.
Click to expand...

Well, first of all I never heard of any law about "being too close to a barricade." If such a law exists, it is ridiculous. Also, moving the barricade would mean the man is further from the scene, making him less of a destraction, despite his proximity to the barricade.
 
Geoist said:
If they could take the time to arrest the man then they can take the time to walk up to him and talk to him. Its called being civilized... something many cops have forgotten to do.



All I know is that apparently police yelled at him from a distance. Could not make out what was said but according to the Lieutenant they were ordering him to turn down his radio.
Police shoot and kill Rottweiler in the street when the dog runs over to owner being arrested for obstruction of justice | Mail Online




It changes it completely. Since they were not actively dealing with the armed suspect I don't see how that situation can be used as an excuse for their failures.



1. The man had a fullgrown rottweiler and the cops knew it.
2. The man was cooperative with police
3. Common sense would tell you the dog would get upset if it sees its owner being arrested. Despite your claims from other day, they were only a few yards away from the car.

Thus, it is completely reasonable to expect a trained officer to take a minute and make sure the dog is secured.
Click to expand...
You don't take minutes with active crime scenes. You maintain positive control of the aria until the situation is over.
 
Geoist said:
Well, first of all I never heard of any law about "being too close to a barricade." If such a law exists, it is ridiculous. Also, moving the barricade would mean the man is further from the scene, making him less of a destraction, despite his proximity to the barricade.
Click to expand...
His proximity to the crime scene wasn't the issue.

You don't stop to move cars and beracaids in the middle of an active armed robbery response. You cuff and detain anyone who decides to be a pest. You don't take time to uncuff someone you just arrested because there's a reason you cuffed them in the first place. You don't use escalation of force procedures with a hostile dog while you're detaining someone who was being a pest at an active armed robbery response; you kill the dog.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
they did take actions to make sure the dog was secure. They allowed the guy to put his dog in his car.
Click to expand...

How so? Seems the guy chose to do that on his own.


Honestly, it's like you expect them to baby sit individuals in the middle of an ACTIVE CRIME SCENE.

lol
Click to expand...

So now making sure a dog is secure before arresting its owner right in front of it is equivalent to babysitting? Lol.
 
Jerry said:
You don't take minutes with active crime scenes. You maintain positive control of the aria until the situation is over.
Click to expand...

The cops who arrested the guy did not appear actively involved in the crime scene. It appears they were assigned to crowd control. And they failed utterly.
 
Geoist said:
The cops who arrested the guy did not appear actively involved in the crime scene. It appears they were assigned to crowd control. And they failed utterly.
Click to expand...
Success or failure is defined by the crowd's ability to interfere with the interior of the scene. No one was allowed to interfere, so it was a success.
 
Geoist said:
Apparently it was if he was a distraction.
Click to expand...
And then he was cuffed and put in a car and wasn't a distraction anymore.

He wanted attention, he got it.
 
Jerry said:
Success or failure is defined by the crowd's ability to interfere with the interior of the scene. No one was allowed to interfere, so it was a success.
Click to expand...

The situation that resulted from the arrest was avoidable. Complete failure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom