Cops arrest man filming police, shoot his dog.

[twinrider1]

You conveniently skipped the part where the officer made an unlawful arrest, which precipitated the entire situation. I pray you aren't a cop, but I fear you are. In any case, congratulations for being part of the problem.

Officer questioning detainees.
Officers feel loud music is interfering and ask dog owner to turn down music.
Dog owner declines.
Officer detains dog owner for interference with police business.
Dog gets aggressive.
Officer shoots dog.

Sad, but nothing illegal here.

 

[dustb0wlkid]

Officer questioning detainees.
Officers feel loud music is interfering and ask dog owner to turn down music.
Dog owner declines.
Officer detains dog owner for interference with police business.
Dog gets aggressive.
Officer shoots dog.

Sad, but nothing illegal here.

Some people just want to live in blissful ignorance. Wait and see how this turns out, and get back to me. Hint: you are going end up being totally wrong.

 

[Paul98]

We need a precedent upon which individual cops can be sued directly for everything they have in cases like these, without protection in any form by union/etc. We also need them to be filmed 100% of the time they are on duty, without the ability to edit or hide any footage. After all, "if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" Right?

I agree 100% but the problem is that even with these video's nothing happens. You get people video taping police doing plainly criminal actions but since they are cops nothing happens to them. Where instead they need to be judged harsher than the general public.

 

[skyking]

None of that matters to me. When I had my big dogs with me, nothing was more important than their safety, except mine and my family's safety. Hell, they WERE family. That dog owner is to blame 100% for forgetting what was important.
If it was an unjust detainment, he should get an apology for that. The dog thing is on him. Poor dog.

 

[NetGuySC]

You conveniently skipped the part where the officer made an unlawful arrest, which precipitated the entire situation. I pray you aren't a cop, but I fear you are. In any case, congratulations for being part of the problem.

Congrats to you for surviving this long with no common sense. Even an improper arrest does not mean the officer has to allow himself or anyone else to bet mauled by this dog. No one on the street, law enforcement or the general public, is legally required to allow an attacking dog to maul them, it's just that simple.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Congrats to you for surviving this long with no common sense. Even an improper arrest does not mean the officer has to allow himself or anyone else to bet mauled by this dog. No one on the street, law enforcement or the general public, is legally required to allow an attacking dog to maul them, it's just that simple.

If the unrestrained wild animal hadn't escalated the situation, the dog wouldn't have attacked.

 

[twinrider1]

You conveniently skipped the part where the officer made an unlawful arrest, which precipitated the entire situation. I pray you aren't a cop, but I fear you are. In any case, congratulations for being part of the problem.

Officer questioning detainees.
Officers feel loud music is interfering and ask dog owner to turn down music.
Dog owner declines.
Officer detains dog owner for interference with police business.
Dog gets aggressive.
Officer shoots dog.

Sad, but nothing illegal here.

Some people just want to live in blissful ignorance. Wait and see how this turns out, and get back to me. Hint: you are going end up being totally wrong.

Ok, let's see.
To be clear, I don't know if the officers here arrested him or not, or on what charges. My point is that situation could happen just the way I described and no charges would be filed against the officers.
You can be cuffed and temporarily detained without being arrested.
These guys in the OP's video might get a letter in their file, have to go to a class, get a few days off, but they won't be charged with a crime.

 

[Brigandier]

My dog would never protect me like that. The little shit would see the po-pos as new friends. I see why the cops had to shoot the dog, but it was clearly all their fault.

 

[Number1]

A citizen playing music in his vechile comes on the scene of a crime with his beloved animal and steps outside to video the incident. Instead of leaving his animal inside a hot vehicle in the middle of summer he takes him out while leashed and secured. The innocent citizen views the scene from several angles at a safe distance from the police activity and asks the officers who are not engaged in the incident a few questions.

Interesting how a few subjective words can change the point of view isn't it?

Citizen's failure to control his dog gets the dog killed. Any questions?

 

[alien42]

it's amazing the different perspective one gets watching the video without sound versus with sound. without sound it seems like the cops completely screwed up but with sound, their actions become understandable.

 

[NetGuySC]

If the unrestrained wild animal hadn't escalated the situation, the dog wouldn't have attacked.

I understand why you think this. You believe the arrest was not proper and if it didn't happen, the dog would still be alive.

I just do not feel cause and effect applies here.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Citizen's failure to control his dog gets the dog killed. Any questions?

He was perfectly in control of the dog until the cops interfered with his witnessing of them.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

I understand why you think this. You believe the arrest was not proper and if it didn't happen, the dog would still be alive.

I just do not feel cause and effect applies here.

Wrong again (don't you guys ever get sick of that?).

Even after the two terrorists had detained the owner, the third terrorist came over looking for action. He was hopped up on adrenaline and apparently distraught that he hadn't been able to shoot something during the hostage situation, so he came over to "aid" the other terrorists with gun drawn fully intending to shoot someone/thing. After goading the rotweiller into lunging at him, he had his opportunity and took it.

 

[WelshBloke]

He was perfectly in control of the dog until the cops interfered with his witnessing of them.

The "until" is pretty important there. You need to be in control of your dog at all times, particularly if it's a big aggressive animal.

 

[WelshBloke]

Wrong again (don't you guys ever get sick of that?).

Even after the two terrorists had detained the owner, the third terrorist came over looking for action. He was hopped up on adrenaline and apparently distraught that he hadn't been able to shoot something during the hostage situation, so he came over to "aid" the other terrorists with gun drawn fully intending to shoot someone/thing. After goading the rotweiller into lunging at him, he had his opportunity and took it.

The fact that you have to phrase your argument in the way you have suggests that you don't really have any solid grounds and are just going straight for the emotional side of things.

Yeah it's crappy that the dog got shot.
Yeah the cops could have handled it better.
Yeah the guy could have handled it better.
But as soon as that dog got loose and attacked a policeman there really was only one outcome.

 

[gothamhunter]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the cops shouldn't have shot the dog; no matter how depressing it is (I love dogs and it tore at my heart) to see that, they were obviously threatened and defended themselves. If you are arguing this, you've never been face to face with an aggressive dog.

The issue people should be arguing about is that the situation where they had to shoot the dog never should have happened; it started and ended with those officers.

 

[alien42]

The issue people should be arguing about is that the situation where they had to shoot the dog never should have happened; it started and ended with those officers.

you sure it didn't start with the guy blasting music and yelling at the cops?

 

[gothamhunter]

you sure it didn't start with the guy blasting music and yelling at the cops?

"You sure it didn't start with an individual playing music at an audible level and asking an officer a question?"

See, I can type out how I see it too.

Objectively, did he do anything that would have warranted his arrest or detainment, guns drawn?

 

[alien42]

"You sure it didn't start with an individual playing music at an audible level and asking an officer a question?"

See, I can type out how I see it too.

Objectively, did he do anything that would have warranted his arrest or detainment, guns drawn?

you can phrase it however you like but it doesn't change the fact that the guy was playing loud music which affected the officers ability to do their job at a dangerous crime scene.

 

[gothamhunter]

you can phrase it however you like but it doesn't change the fact that the guy was playing loud music which affected the officers ability to do their job at a dangerous crime scene.

So they say. They had to walk what looks like almost a block to get to him; if his music was really that loud, we would have heard it better.

I'm sure the person involved in the arrest and shooting the dog really needed to kick this guy in the face, too:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-highfive3-2009feb03,0,6717990.story

 

[WelshBloke]

...

The issue people should be arguing about is that the situation where they had to shoot the dog never should have happened; it started and ended with those officers.

Like I said the cops could have handled it better, but having a big dog with you shouldn't make it impossible for the police to talk to you.

If the guy had been a bit more reasonable (turning the music down/not shouting) the dog would be alive. Other people were videoing and the cops weren't hassling them.

Either way if it had been my dog I'd have been primarily pissed off with the guy for putting my dog in that situation. Neither the dog nor the cops had any choice but to be there.

 

[alien42]

So they say. They had to walk what looks like almost a block to get to him; if his music was really that loud, we would have heard it better.

I'm sure the person involved in the arrest and shooting the dog really needed to kick this guy in the face, too:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-highfive3-2009feb03,0,6717990.story

two completely different cases that share only the same police department. i am not stupid enough to make blanket judgements based on a single commonality.

 

[gothamhunter]

Like I said the cops could have handled it better, but having a big dog with you shouldn't make it impossible for the police to talk to you.

If the guy had been a bit more reasonable (turning the music down/not shouting) the dog would be alive. Other people were videoing and the cops weren't hassling them.

Either way if it had been my dog I'd have been primarily pissed off with the guy for putting my dog in that situation. Neither the dog nor the cops had any choice but to be there.

I'm sure if they just talked there wouldn't have been an issue.

 

[WelshBloke]

I'm sure if they just talked there wouldn't have been an issue.

He would have turned the music down and stopped shouting if asked?

They were just talking to him weren't they? They weren't throwing him to the ground or punching him.

 

[gothamhunter]

two completely different cases that share only the same police department. i am not stupid enough to make blanket judgements based on a single commonality.

Neither am I; one officer was involved in both cases.