Hawthorne police kill dog dog during arrest of owner

reply to post by sdcigarpig


Sorry I disagree, I don't see anything but a dog trying to smell or possibly lick the hand of the human being reaching for the leash around Its neck. At no time between the dog exiting the car and the dog being shot did I see any sign of aggression, in fact on multiple occasions I saw just the opposite. The animal backs off in fear at one point, aggressive dogs don't do that, if his intention was to bite that officer would have been bit. No one is arguing that the owner made poor decisions, but his decisions were annoying at best, nowhere near criminal or warranting handcuffs and detainment or arrest. They should have sent him on his way. Instead they overreact like the tough guys they are and end up taking an innocent life. We can tit for tat all day, you say it's the owners fault, I say it's obviously fault of the one who pulled the trigger needlessly and killed the animal. He surely had pepper spray and a taser at the ready just as easy as he had his gun. Police in So Cal are trigger happy for sure, some most likely downright homicidal. They joined up to shoot stuff and by George they are gonna pull that trigger any chance they get.

reply to post by TheCrimsonGhost


lol yeah, baking, leaping out of the car and lunging towards officers was in no way aggression. He was simply running over to lick the officers...

reply to post by TheCrimsonGhost

I did after watching the video.

In my youth, one of the jobs that I did, was work with dogs, and lets just say the dog running and then stopping is a common thing when attacking. Most canines will attack the rear, never the front. If you look, they charge at the rear, and if what is being attacked turns and faces them, they will halt and then try to come up with another means of attack.

From what I saw on the video, the officer had his gun out. He reached down to try to get the leash, the dog leaped and tried to snap at the officer. There was a growl that could be heard, that is not something of a playful action. And if the animal was fearful, as most would have suggested, then why did it not back up or even run? Most animals when they are terrified will have a fight or flight response, means that if they have the option, they run, they do not stop and stay there. No this was a clear cut case of where if given the opportunity the animal would have attacked if the officers back was to him.

But here is the bottom line to this all. If that animal had bit the officer, then the person would have ended up with a felony charge, jail time and his dog would have been put down as being a dangerous animal.

Originally posted by buster2010
It was clearly the owners fault that the dog was shot. He is the one that stopped and started filming and yelling at the police.

Already covered. There is no crime of "filming and yelling at police" in US.

Also he didn't properly restrain his dog the windows in his car are down low enough that the dog can easily get out.

Again that was all done by the cops. Handcufs and all.

Had he not done any of these things his dog would still be alive. When that dog snapped at the cop he had every right to shoot the dog.

Correction, had the cops actually followed the laws they're supposed to enforce none of this would've happened. He might've gotten a ticket for playing music too loudly but not arrested for bogus charges.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


Why wasn't the dog fearful? Erm... because it's a rottweiler, a breed which doesn't know the sensation of fear unless it's beaten into them, and because it didn't know what a gun is, perhaps?

Originally posted by TheCrimsonGhost
reply to post by buster2010

 

Sure except he didn't snap at the officer, and was being completely submissive and even cowering away at one point, how you failed to see this is astounding. And last I checked It isn't a crime to film police or even say something they may not like. So using your logic, it's the officers fault because had they not detained this man illegally while knowing he had a dog that would be left unattended none of this would have happened. Obviously it's deeper than that, your method of determining who's at fault is severely flawed.

edit on 7/2/2013 by TheCrimsonGhost because: (no reason given)

Are you blind? Start watching at 3:20 you can clearly see the dog snap at the officer when he reached for the dogs leash. At no time was that dog submissive. You have no experience with dogs. Your the cop is always wrong mentality is clouding you judgment. Did the cops ask this guy to stop and get out of his car? No they didn't the owner is at fault here.

reply to post by buster2010


It makes no difference to the "cops are ebil" and the illogical animal lovers. That dog could have been killing one of the cops and the guy could have been shooting at them and people would still argue that the arrest and dog pwning was not necessary.

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by buster2010
It was clearly the owners fault that the dog was shot. He is the one that stopped and started filming and yelling at the police.

Already covered. There is no crime of "filming and yelling at police" in US.

Also he didn't properly restrain his dog the windows in his car are down low enough that the dog can easily get out.

Again that was all done by the cops. Handcufs and all.

Had he not done any of these things his dog would still be alive. When that dog snapped at the cop he had every right to shoot the dog.

Correction, had the cops actually followed the laws they're supposed to enforce none of this would've happened. He might've gotten a ticket for playing music too loudly but not arrested for bogus charges.

You have no idea what he said to the police. Only civil rights violation was picked up by the video. When they are responding to a call you can't just stand there and yell at them.

Did the police roll the windows down on the guys car? Nope he did that so it's his fault.

What music? He was interfering with the police while they were doing their job so where are the bogus charges?

Originally posted by buster2010
You have no idea what he said to the police. Only civil rights violation was picked up by the video. When they are responding to a call you can't just stand there and yell at them.

Under what law is that then? Feel free to source a law that prohibits 1st amendment when police are out on a call.

Did the police roll the windows down on the guys car? Nope he did that so it's his fault.

It was the polices fault that he would've had to do so in the first place.

What music? He was interfering with the police while they were doing their job so where are the bogus charges?

That doesn't even come close to interfering. Not by a milestone. By law you have to get physical or approach cops and yell directly at their faces. You're just making stuff up.

Originally posted by Superhans
reply to post by buster2010

 

It makes no difference to the "cops are ebil" and the illogical animal lovers. That dog could have been killing one of the cops and the guy could have been shooting at them and people would still argue that the arrest and dog pwning was not necessary.

I'm an animal lover also. But I am not stupid enough to see a dog lunge at someone and then think that person doesn't have a right to defend themselves. The officer isn't at fault and neither was the dog because he saw what he thought was his owner in trouble. The person at fault was his dumbass owner.

Originally posted by buster2010
I'm an animal lover also. But I am not stupid enough to see a dog lunge at someone and then think that person doesn't have a right to defend themselves. The officer isn't at fault and neither was the dog because he saw what he thought was his owner in trouble. The person at fault was his dumbass owner.

Of course he had every right to defend himself, but did he need to go straight to his gun? Anyone with a bit of confidence around dogs would know that the dog in the vid wasn't in full-on attack mode. You could have faced it and stamped your foot and it would have been wary of this new alpha male that wasn't backing down.

While I recognise there is an element of the guy being responsible for letting his dog get into such a situation, the loss of a much loved companion seems a harsh price to pay for disrespecting the po'po's privacy.

reply to post by PsykoOps

Under what law is that then? Feel free to source a law that prohibits 1st amendment when police are out on a call.

It's called interfering with the police while they are performing their duties.

It was the polices fault that he would've had to do so in the first place.

When he put the dog in the car he should have made sure the dog couldn't get out of the window. Again his fault not the cops.

That doesn't even come close to interfering. Not by a milestone. By law you have to get physical or approach cops and yell directly at their faces. You're just making stuff up.

When you are yelling enough that you distract them from what they are doing then you are interfering.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by buster2010
I'm an animal lover also. But I am not stupid enough to see a dog lunge at someone and then think that person doesn't have a right to defend themselves. The officer isn't at fault and neither was the dog because he saw what he thought was his owner in trouble. The person at fault was his dumbass owner.

Of course he had every right to defend himself, but did he need to go straight to his gun? Anyone with a bit of confidence around dogs would know that the dog in the vid wasn't in full-on attack mode. You could have faced it and stamped your foot and it would have been wary of this new alpha male that wasn't backing down.

Yeah right stamp your foot at an 80 pound dog that sees his owner in trouble and let's see how long you keep that foot.

reply to post by buster2010


That is why i added the illogical, im an animal love too but not one of these illogical animal lovers "he was trying to lick the cop when he lunged at him"

Originally posted by buster2010
It's called interfering with the police while they are performing their duties.

Nope, no such law that would apply. Also there was no charge of interfering.

When he put the dog in the car he should have made sure the dog couldn't get out of the window. Again his fault not the cops.

If it weren't for the cops harassing a man without any reason he would've simply stood there, or alternatively left the area. So again it was the cops fault. You cannot change reality of the situation no matter how you try to twist it.

When you are yelling enough that you distract them from what they are doing then you are interfering.

Actually that's not true at all. In US you're allowed to yell, talk, hold signs saying things and other fun stuff. He wasn't even close to the cops. Something like 20 meters away. So that whole angle is bs.

reply to post by PsykoOps

Actually that's not true at all. In US you're allowed to yell, talk, hold signs saying things and other fun stuff. He wasn't even close to the cops. Something like 20 meters away. So that whole angle is bs.

did you watch the video or do you just use the same generic anti-cop stuff for every thread?

Yes I watched the video and I've read the related material. Did you?

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Yes I watched the video and I've read the related material. Did you?

Yes I did. I was asking because you seem incapable of grasping the idea that the man came in blasting music interfering with a SWAT standoff involving an armed individual and he refused to turn it down when asked. He did however take the time to put his dog inside the car so its not like he never had the chance to.
Do you not see this because you don't want to or is it because the brand of fanaticism you favor does not permit you to see and process such thoughts and ideas?

You seem incapable of grasping the idea that regardless of your bias there was no law broken. If the music would've been an issue he would've gotten a ticket for it.
Do you not see this beyond the blue line?

Originally posted by PsykoOps
You seem incapable of grasping the idea that regardless of your bias there was no law broken. If the music would've been an issue he would've gotten a ticket for it.
Do you not see this beyond the blue line?

It was an issue, he was arrested over it. See the doublethink in action