Cops arrest man filming police, shoot his dog.

[Craig234]

No, but that's beside the point. Alkemyst is criticizing police for making that statement as if that was their reasoning for shooting the dog. The Lt is correct, the suspect is handcuffed and defenseless and has as much right to protection as police officers and the rest of the public. I don't know what the issue with that statement is.

I agree about their duty to defend him; I disagree the dog was a threat to him.

 

[holden j caufield]

I think there used to be a time when leo were respected, rational, and more community minded. They would be one of us, now it's them against the citizens mentality. And everyone is so buddy buddy that no one is made an example of. This situation probably could have been handled a 1000 different ways and they chose one of the worst options. Tough job but it doesn't excuse them.

 

[JDawg1536]

I agree about their duty to defend him; I disagree the dog was a threat to him.

So do I, and nobody is saying that it was.

"I know it’s the dog’s master, and more than likely not going to attack him, (but) we’ve got a guy handcuffed that’s kind of defenseless. We have a duty to defend him too"

 

[Arkaign]

The way the law works is a law enforcement officer can kill any pet they deem to be interfering. This includes dogs in a crate or on a chain or even at the wrong house.

In some areas it's really bad and the people are getting stick of it. There were better ways to handle what is nothing more than possibly disturbing the peace.

The sad part is no departments track these kinds of things because they don't have too.

True. There's a bad one around here recently :

Cop comes to serve a misdemeanor arrest warrant at the wrong house. Knocks on the front door, doesn't get an answer, so he just carelessly climbs into the backyard where he encounters two german shepherds in the fully fenced yard, and immediately shoots one of them. A few feet away was the owner's 9 year old son (who thankfully was unharmed, god forbid if he had been wrestling and playing with the dogs on the ground as kids often do).

All for a misdemeanor. You know, I don't blame the cop 100% in that one, it seems he was given bad information, though I think hopping the fence and starting firing was a bit over the top. But in our metro area, we have damn well enough felonies to worry about that misdemeanors shouldn't even be on their radar in terms of going around knocking on doors. Situations where you have officers going to bang on doors looking for people should really be reserved for when you really need that service to the community (murderer, rapist, robber, burglar, etc wanted on a felony warrant or probable cause). This business of spending tons of tax $ in order to justify their inflated police forces and overtime (it's a serious racket) is bad logistics. I guarantee you that there were plenty of felony cases to work, active hot ones where that officer could have applied himself instead. But I'm sure that was issued to him as a matter of routine duties.

Back to this one, it was definitely a case where the guy just got under their skin, and they wanted to make a show of him. And that's not a healthy way for a police force to interact with the public. A great officer (I have several in my family) will just take the usual shit that the public gives them with a smile (often a condescending 'screw-you-eat-shit' smile, but a smile) and go about their duties. A bad officer lets the job get to them and ruin their ability to enjoy life or behave like a human being. These are the perpetually angry, often racist, often alcoholic a-holes who die at 52 of a massive heart attack and there isn't even a widow at the funeral because he drove everyone away before kicking the bucket. The ones who beat their kids and animals. You can always tell the difference in seconds when you meet one of these guys.

 

[JDawg1536]

I think there used to be a time when leo were respected, rational, and more community minded. They would be one of us, now it's them against the citizens mentality. And everyone is so buddy buddy that no one is made an example of. This situation probably could have been handled a 1000 different ways and they chose one of the worst options. Tough job but it doesn't excuse them.

Everyone saying it could have been handled differently is essentially saying the police shouldn't enforce the law, otherwise known as doing their jobs. If you want to argue the dog shouldn't have been shot, then fine, debate and argue away. If you wanna say they shouldn't have arrested a guy who clearly and intentionally was interfering with police during a hostage situation and according to police "repeatedly asked to turn his music down" and didn't, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Craig234]

So do I, and nobody is saying that it was.

"I know it’s the dog’s master, and more than likely not going to attack him, (but) we’ve got a guy handcuffed that’s kind of defenseless. We have a duty to defend him too"

Yes, the officer IS saying it was. It wasn't just a general statement about the duty to protect - it's claiming that was a justification for shooting the dog in this case.

 

[Craig234]

I think there used to be a time when leo were respected, rational, and more community minded. They would be one of us, now it's them against the citizens mentality. And everyone is so buddy buddy that no one is made an example of. This situation probably could have been handled a 1000 different ways and they chose one of the worst options. Tough job but it doesn't excuse them.

I blame that partly on some very nutty citizens.

And it's really analogous to the 'tea party' insane anti-government mentality.

In both cases, I think the police and government are obligated to 'do the right thing' anyway, but it's a lot harder with the crazy hostility for no good reason.

 

[Number1]

Everyone saying it could have been handled differently is essentially saying the police shouldn't enforce the law, otherwise known as doing their jobs. If you want to argue the dog shouldn't have been shot, then fine, debate and argue away. If you wanna say they shouldn't have arrested a guy who clearly and intentionally was interfering with police during a hostage situation and according to police "repeatedly asked to turn his music down" and didn't, then I don't know what to tell you.

The more I think about it the more I think it could have been handled differently. Obviously, the cops were aware of the dog's presence and they could have easily asked the owner to "secure" the dog before having a conversation with him or arresting him if they had to.

Realistically, there is nothing in the video that indicate that the dog owner would not have complied with their request to lock the dog up and turn the music down.

A bunch of hot heads on both side for sure but you would expect better from paid "professionals".

 

[alkemyst]

No, but that's beside the point. Alkemyst is criticizing police for making that statement as if that was their reasoning for shooting the dog. The Lt is correct, the suspect is handcuffed and defenseless and has as much right to protection as police officers and the rest of the public. I don't know what the issue with that statement is.

You'd have to have a pretty dumbass dog that would ever be going at it's master. Everyone knows this.

The fact is the cops will make statements that confuse people.

You seem to be a cop knob slobberer. My g/f worked corrections. One of my best friends lived with my family for a year his senior year and is a cop.

However; I have a problem with many things like shooting dogs and my own situation where at Palm Beach Citibank some asshat of a cop pointed his gun at me and my ex-wife for doing nothing wrong. Made a report on it and luckily the people that witnessed it plus another party in a separate incident across the street earlier did.

My citation was for my window tint, which was only one shade too dark when I finally had it tested. It was sold as legal tint and you could definitely see in the vehicle with it.

 

[alkemyst]

The more I think about it the more I think it could have been handled differently. Obviously, the cops were aware of the dog's presence and they could have easily asked the owner to "secure" the dog before having a conversation with him or arresting him if they had to.

Realistically, there is nothing in the video that indicate that the dog owner would not have complied with their request to lock the dog up and turn the music down.

A bunch of hot heads on both side for sure but you would expect better from paid "professionals".

Post Office folks deal with worse than this everyday and they are not carrying.

 

[alkemyst]

I never once said jaywalking and parking too close to the corner were grounds for arrest. I was asked what laws he was breaking, so I named all I saw. Do you disagree with the statement that he was breaking many laws?

I stated several times that interfering with police and disobeying a lawful order were both grounds for arrest, and he was arrested.

What sociopathic thinking? It is a police officer's job to protect themselves, their fellow officers, and the public. The dog's owner is member of the public.

He was not breaking really any laws there that would warrant someone/thing dying.

Sure if the suspect did secure his dog and pull out a gun, they'd be in danger; but danger is what a cop has to accept.

 

[JDawg1536]

Yes, the officer IS saying it was. It wasn't just a general statement about the duty to protect - it's claiming that was a justification for shooting the dog in this case.

Yes, he's saying it was partly a reason, but he specifically says it was likely no threat to the man.

 

[JDawg1536]

Realistically, there is nothing in the video that indicate that the dog owner would not have complied with their request to lock the dog up and turn the music down.

Except for the part where he didn't comply with their request to turn the music down.

 

[JDawg1536]

You'd have to have a pretty dumbass dog that would ever be going at it's master. Everyone knows this.

You seem to be a cop knob slobberer. My g/f worked corrections. One of my best friends lived with my family for a year his senior year and is a cop.

Are you saying dogs never turn on their owners? And how did the cops know he was the "master?" For all they know it's his friends dog or he picked it up from the shelter on the way home from work.

And no, I'm not a "cop knob slobberer." I've been in plenty of discussions on this forum revolving around similar incidents, and this might be the first time I've sided with the cops.

 

[JDawg1536]

He was not breaking really any laws there that would warrant someone/thing dying.

Is that what you think I'm saying? The death of the dog and the seriousness of his crime don't really have anything to do with each other.

And what do you mean "not breaking really"? He either was or he wasn't.

 

[WelshBloke]

He was not breaking really any laws there that would warrant someone/thing dying.

...

Apart from having an uncontrolled dog on the loose that was attacking a policeman.

 

[Craig234]

Yes, he's saying it was partly a reason, but he specifically says it was likely no threat to the man.

Yes, he said that, but he also implied that the tiny sliver of a chance the dog might pose a threat to the owner helped justify the shooting.

 

[Craig234]

The more I think about it the more I think it could have been handled differently. Obviously, the cops were aware of the dog's presence and they could have easily asked the owner to "secure" the dog before having a conversation with him or arresting him if they had to.

Realistically, there is nothing in the video that indicate that the dog owner would not have complied with their request to lock the dog up and turn the music down.

A bunch of hot heads on both side for sure but you would expect better from paid "professionals".

Thing is, in a police operation, dealing with a guy showing hostility they're about to detain, you don't give him any more chance to go to his car and get a gun.

The guy had the chance to the secure the dog when he put him in the car, and should have done it then.

It would be bad police procedure to say 'go back to car then we'll handcuff you'.

 

[JDawg1536]

Yes, he said that, but he also implied that the tiny sliver of a chance the dog might pose a threat to the owner helped justify the shooting.

Well, it didn't unjustify it. And that reasoning alone wouldn't be justification.... but I think everybody knows that.

 

[alkemyst]

Is that what you think I'm saying? The death of the dog and the seriousness of his crime don't really have anything to do with each other.

And what do you mean "not breaking really"? He either was or he wasn't.

Well as much he was interfering they were able to arrest the armed robber without incident.

You had to have voted for the Patriot Act.

 

[alkemyst]

Thing is, in a police operation, dealing with a guy showing hostility they're about to detain, you don't give him any more chance to go to his car and get a gun.

The guy had the chance to the secure the dog when he put him in the car, and should have done it then.

It would be bad police procedure to say 'go back to car then we'll handcuff you'.

Hostility? lolwut?!?

He was only guilty of playing music too loud (which I hate).

He and the people in that town were victims of police violence and denial of rights, he put his balls out to record to make sure it didn't happen.

The police department I live under had a few bad apples. They shook down immigrants and minorities for big fines let go for the money in their wallets/person. They shook down an off-duty black FBI agent one night and all got served.

 

[JDawg1536]

Well as much he was interfering they were able to arrest the armed robber without incident.

You had to have voted for the Patriot Act.

As I read it, they had just taken him into custody when the music arrived on scene. That is irrelevant. And no, I didn't.

 

[JDawg1536]

He was only guilty of playing music too loud (which I hate).

Really? But that isn't an arrestable offense.

 

[Craig234]

Hostility? lolwut?!?

He was only guilty of playing music too loud (which I hate).

He and the people in that town were victims of police violence and denial of rights, he put his balls out to record to make sure it didn't happen.

The police department I live under had a few bad apples. They shook down immigrants and minorities for big fines let go for the money in their wallets/person. They shook down an off-duty black FBI agent one night and all got served.

No, he was prancing around with what looked like clear animosity, a dangerous dog, yelling at the police, refusing to turn his music down. He looked hostile to me (not violently).

 

[JDawg1536]

hos·tile adjective \ˈhäs-təl, -ˌtī(-&#601😉l\
b : marked by malevolence : having or showing unfriendly feelings <a hostile act>