Cops arrest man for filming, kill his dog too

cincybearcat

PJ_Soul wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Also, calling the cops pigs is not at all in line with using the N word. So there's that.
Not that I call cops pigs.... but come on.

How is it not all all in line?

It's a terrible term to demean a group of individuals based on a characteristic...this being their profession.

One is racist, while the other is a derogatory term used against people in a particular profession. The same as calling lawyers bottom feeders. It is NOT the same thing. Being a cop is not characteristic. It's a job.

Ok, I disagree. but fair enough for your point of view.

JimmyV

PJ_Soul wrote:

even flow - question mark wrote:

The only thing I'll comment on is the fact that they could have done the dog justice by putting it out of it's writhing misery.

Agreed. Just standing there watching it thrash around like that is pretty dispicable. If you're so willing to shoot a dog, at least be man enough to finish the fucking job. That cop was quick on his feet when it came to filling it with holes, but once it came to putting it out of its misery, he just stood there like an idiot. :x

Dear god...

Not watching this video was the right decision for me.

unsung

I wish I didn't. However things like this need to be shown. Police need to serve and protect, not be overlords over people.

I also posted links that no one has mentioned. Dog shootings are becoming commonplace and are the first action instead of the last resort. There are some examples in the link that are astonishing. It's disturbing that these people are given guns. There has to be a mental problem with those that shoot first, they shouldn't be cops.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

unsung wrote:

I wish I didn't. However things like this need to be shown. Police need to serve and protect, not be overlords over people.

I also posted links that no one has mentioned. Dog shootings are becoming commonplace and are the first action instead of the last resort. There are some examples in the link that are astonishing. It's disturbing that these people are given guns. There has to be a mental problem with those that shoot first, they shouldn't be cops.

I am not necessarily agreeing that the right actions were taken by the law with the owner of the dog. Whether or not he needed to be handcuffed and arrested is to be determined after the story comes out.

Having said this... viscious dog attacks are also becoming commonplace. Good lord, man. What you expect from the police is flabbergasting. With the conditions you would have them work under... why would anyone wish to do that job?

You want cops who shoot second? So, in other words... get bit or get shot before you draw your weapon prepared to defend yourself? Ridiculous.

cincybearcat

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

You want cops who shoot second? So, in other words... get bit or get shot before you draw your weapon prepared to defend yourself? Ridiculous.

You throw a hoodie on that dog then unsung would be ok with it.

Smellyman

cincybearcat wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

You want cops who shoot second? So, in other words... get bit or get shot before you draw your weapon prepared to defend yourself? Ridiculous.

You throw a hoodie on that dog then unsung would be ok with it.

haha

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

I've seen the exact thing from a dog that was hit by a car right in front of me: on 2 different occasions. I'm pretty sure it was.

And if it wasn't... then that dog was still kicking after 6,7,8...? shots. And you are suggesting that they did what to subdue it?

And I've seen the same thing while my cat was suffocating as her lungs failed. She was very obviously conscious. I could tell because my face was 8 inches from hers.

Okay. You seem to have an answer for everything here. Four things as I try to let this one go:

1. You have cast judgement on the officers and have deemed them barbaric for defending themselves from a seemingly menacing dog. You say the dog was not challenging them. You say they should have tried a bunch of things instead of shooting it- but never really said what. Your example from your personal experience can't come into play here- the owner was handcuffed and couldn't come to the rescue. The officers are not going to uncuff the guy so that he can control his dog: there are multiple scenarios where this action could be disastrous. I illustrated one, but just use your imagination as to how something like that could backfire dramatically.

2. I would suggest reading up a bit on post mortem nerve reflexes. It might have been what you witnessed during the video- even though you saw a cat from 8 inches from your face that never exhibited residual neural signals. Your dismissal of the notion that this might have been what we witnessed before the dog ceased to move points to a certain level of closed-minded thinking.

3. Why do you ignore the 'tougher to answer' questions such as: would the officers be in the right to defend themselves if the dog bit one of them? And... to that... do they have to wait to get bit before defending themselves?

4. Do you place yourself at risk when you go to work? You seem to speak from the position as one who does. If so... then perhaps I need to reconsider my position. If not... then perhaps you might wish to reconsider yours.

1. I don't believe from what I saw that they needed to defend themselves to that extent, and I did say what they should have tried a lot of times, and they had options. I said they could have let the owner step forward, as he was trying to do, so he could calm the dog down and be between the dog and the cops, and/or the cops should have stepped back a couple of steps to see what the dog did. The owner totally could have come to the rescue simply by stepping forward 3 feet and talking to the dog. No hands needed. And the owner TRIED to do that, but the cops held him back.

2. IMO the dog was alive and in pain after being shot, and I don't think there is any point in us arguing about that. The dog was squealing, and took a while just to fall down. In any case, neither of us are vets, and that whole issue is actually completely separate from the main point anyway, which is that the cop shot the dog and shouldn't have.

3. I never saw anyone ask if they would have been right or wrong in shooting the dog had it bit one of them (I did not read anything in this thread before my first post and I'm sure have not read some posts since then), but I don't find that a hard to answer question at all. If the dog had bitten one of them then he would have been right in shooting it. But it didn't. And didn't even TRY to. If it had even TRIED to bite one of them, shooting MIGHT have been justified, but probably not without them even trying to take a step away from the dog.

4. I am not a cop or a fireman or anything.... but I do place myself at risk in that on a semi-regular basis I deal with volatile, upset, and/or mentally ill or emotionally unstable people, and I often have to tell them what they don't want to here - things that seriously impact their lives at times. I have felt threatened several times in this context. I have had to call security many times while I was fearful for my safety, and I have also taken courses on how to deescalate threatening situations and how to deal with conflict (with people). But I don't actually know why you're asking. If I knitted mittens for a living, I could still have a valid opinion about what happened on that video. I have been attacked by dogs 3 times. One bit me in the face, another jumped on me and scratched my back really badly, one bit my leg. And then there was the stand off I was in with a very sinister rotti that was ready to lunge. So I think I can say that I have experience with dealing with threatening dogs.

JonnyPistachio

I'm one of the people who is kinda in the middle on this one. I dont think the dog needed to die. And as I stated before, I dont think i personally would've shot the dog, but I also dont think many of us are in the position to judge even after seeing the video. Having a large rottweiler bearing down on your face cannot be an easy thing to react to. And it did lunge a few times. In addition, these guys were likely on edge as they were responding to an armed hostage situation I think... I know that's not an excuse, but it does make you wonder why the fuck the owner was poking his ass into their business. He put his dogs life at risk, as well as his own.

From the video, it is hard to tell the aggression level of the dog. I've had a big ass dog in my face and it wasnt even that mad, and it scared the shit out of me. We might not be able to tell from the distance of the video how angry that dog appeared. But on the flipside, its possible that the dog was not aggressive at all. BUT, officers put their lives on the line all the time, and as thirty bills has said, it's possible that within seconds that dog could've had someones face in its jaws. Its a split second decision, and as it might have been the wrong one, its not completely out of line. This even reminds me a bit of the Zimmerman trial. How threatened does one need to feel in order to react with potential deadly force? Why is that deadly force the only option? I would've just looked like a pussy and jumped on the hood of the police vehicle, but then again, that leaves the other two officers who were cuffing the guy, very vulnerable, becasue they had their hands full.

So, I think each and every one of us needs to consider the opposite of what we're thinking for a moment to keep an open mind to what might have happened and how it might have appeared if you were the one with a rottweiler breathing down your neck. I only suggest this because after reading a lot of posts in this thread, it almost appears as though each of us is watching a different video. Again, I am completely disgusted by the officers actions, but I cant condone them.

Godfather.

I could of went my whole life without see that...

Godfather.

unsung

cincybearcat wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

You want cops who shoot second? So, in other words... get bit or get shot before you draw your weapon prepared to defend yourself? Ridiculous.

You throw a hoodie on that dog then unsung would be ok with it.

explain this.

unsung

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

I am not necessarily agreeing that the right actions were taken by the law with the owner of the dog. Whether or not he needed to be handcuffed and arrested is to be determined after the story comes out.

Having said this... viscious dog attacks are also becoming commonplace. Good lord, man. What you expect from the police is flabbergasting. With the conditions you would have them work under... why would anyone wish to do that job?

You want cops who shoot second? So, in other words... get bit or get shot before you draw your weapon prepared to defend yourself? Ridiculous.

Why is necessary to repeat what I've already said? There are less than lethal options. I never said wait until he was bitten to shoot it, those are your words. What is ridiculous is the shoot first attitude that many cops seem to believe is the correct path to take. It doesn't matter if it is a dog or a person, way too many are more than happy to pull the trigger first. Way too many think they are Dirty Harry and think they are untouchable, there are stories all over the place of police abuse. THIS VERY COP was involved in an abuse case previously, he has a history of excessive force. He shouldn't be allowed to protect and serve anymore.

PJ_Soul

unsung wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

I am not necessarily agreeing that the right actions were taken by the law with the owner of the dog. Whether or not he needed to be handcuffed and arrested is to be determined after the story comes out.

Having said this... viscious dog attacks are also becoming commonplace. Good lord, man. What you expect from the police is flabbergasting. With the conditions you would have them work under... why would anyone wish to do that job?

You want cops who shoot second? So, in other words... get bit or get shot before you draw your weapon prepared to defend yourself? Ridiculous.

Why is necessary to repeat what I've already said? There are less than lethal options. I never said wait until he was bitten to shoot it, those are your words. What is ridiculous is the shoot first attitude that many cops seem to believe is the correct path to take. It doesn't matter if it is a dog or a person, way too many are more than happy to pull the trigger first. Way too many think they are Dirty Harry and think they are untouchable, there are stories all over the place of police abuse. THIS VERY COP was involved in an abuse case previously, he has a history of excessive force. He shouldn't be allowed to protect and serve anymore.

I totally agree. As I said before, next time it could be a 12 year old with a water gun or something. Cop was too quick to shoot, and that is scary.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

unsung wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

I am not necessarily agreeing that the right actions were taken by the law with the owner of the dog. Whether or not he needed to be handcuffed and arrested is to be determined after the story comes out.

Having said this... viscious dog attacks are also becoming commonplace. Good lord, man. What you expect from the police is flabbergasting. With the conditions you would have them work under... why would anyone wish to do that job?

You want cops who shoot second? So, in other words... get bit or get shot before you draw your weapon prepared to defend yourself? Ridiculous.

Why is necessary to repeat what I've already said? There are less than lethal options. I never said wait until he was bitten to shoot it, those are your words. What is ridiculous is the shoot first attitude that many cops seem to believe is the correct path to take. It doesn't matter if it is a dog or a person, way too many are more than happy to pull the trigger first. Way too many think they are Dirty Harry and think they are untouchable, there are stories all over the place of police abuse. THIS VERY COP was involved in an abuse case previously, he has a history of excessive force. He shouldn't be allowed to protect and serve anymore.

The only thing you have repeated is that the cops are pigs, you are mad, these guys should be fired, and something else should have been done.

Let's hear what non-lethal option you would have preferred. This is what you have not provided. You have armchair quarterbacked and cast judgement... but from my recollection... you have offered nothing other than criticism. It's easy to do that; but it's not so easy to describe how they should have handled it.

It should be a brilliant response and much greater than the display of force we witnessed because remember... you have the luxury of time and being out of the moment as you describe your suggestion.

vant0037

unsung wrote:

Why is necessary to repeat what I've already said? There are less than lethal options. I never said wait until he was bitten to shoot it, those are your words. What is ridiculous is the shoot first attitude that many cops seem to believe is the correct path to take. It doesn't matter if it is a dog or a person, way too many are more than happy to pull the trigger first. Way too many think they are Dirty Harry and think they are untouchable, there are stories all over the place of police abuse. THIS VERY COP was involved in an abuse case previously, he has a history of excessive force. He shouldn't be allowed to protect and serve anymore.

You keep mentioning his "history of excessive force" without regard for the fact of how often excessive force complaints are lodged.

As a lawyer, I can tell you that there are a number of areas of law where it's generally accepted that people will file complaints with the expectation of getting a settlement, independent of the merits of the claims or not. Police brutality and civil rights law is one of them. That's not to say they don't happen, but rather that every time there's a settlement doesn't mean there's been a finding of fault on the part of the officer.

I'd like to believe that when a defendant lies and says an officer of mine used excessive force that there isn't some schmuck civil attorney willing to fire off a complaint, hoping for a quick settlement, but they unfortunately do exist and it does happen. Again, that's not to say excessive force doesn't happen. But many cities (large cities, typically), will settle these cases routinely, if only to save costs of potential litigation, regardless of whether or not the incident is exactly as alleged. In short, it's worth more to settle a case than it is to litigate. There are some attorneys who know this, and so suddenly, there's an "excessive force" complaint filed and the corresponding trail of official records to go with it.

Quick lesson on the law: a settlement is NOT an admission of guilt.

I'm not saying this is the case with this officer, but through all your complaints in this thread, there's this theme about the officer being too hasty in shooting the dog and now about how this officer shouldn't even have a gun because he has a history. No where have you considered the other possibilities that could explain both. On the dog issue, you can speculate and criticize all you want about what he should have done, what the dog was doing, what the dog wasn't doing, but the fact is, officers are given wide latitude in high-conflict situations. If the officer felt he was in danger, he's empowered to defend himself. There's no state I know of that requires an officer to use less-than-lethal force when it comes to animals (which makes your complaint about his actions inappropriate; call your legislator if you want the rules changed). He might be a dick for shooting, but if he's entitled to under the law, your complaint really isn't with him. On the issue of his history, if you can only point to the settlement reached but no official records or investigation results, then you really don't have much. If he was cleared by his department, it's still very possible that the City (which is the entity sued in brutality cases) made an independent decision to settle. When people cry "police brutality," most of the time an independent investigation - sometimes thorough, sometimes cursory - is triggered. It's very possible that you're decrying the paper trail that exists and not actual conduct.

If you think this guy shouldn't be an officer and is a true example of "pigs out of control" (my phrase, not yours), the fact that he still has a badge and a gun should have you waging a letter-writing campaign to the independent review boards that continue to let him have a badge and a gun. Sorry, but not everything can fit your theory on life.

And on it goes...

mydogmookieblaylock

i am totally a dog person - grew up around rots my whole life -- parent still have 2 and one is 160 lbs so i am really bias on this situation.
That being said before i came to this thread and having only read what happened as i can't stomach the video, I was totally outraged and disappointed by the police officer.

After reading through a lot of your posts i can see points on each side. There is plenty of blame to go around.

the number 1 culprit is the dog owner.
The report states the problem was that he was playing his music too loud and the cops had asked him to turn it down several times because it was interfering with the investigation. So Mr. Dog owner - you should respect the authorities and turn it down and move away.
Also in a lot of ways dogs are like children -even the most well behaved can still be unpredictable. So why would you even tempt fate by having your dog around people with guns.
the police man has his share of blame as well. IT IS A DOG! and you have a bunch of guys with guns standing right by you! Unless the video is like a movie clip where the dog is leaping in the air with his teeth about to clamp down and the cop shot him in the face - he was out of line. A real cowardly move. Worst case scenario for that officer was a 1/2 second bite before one of his co-workers would have put a stop to it.
The police did not say that they shot the dog because they felt threatened - they said they shot it to protect the dog owner because he was in cuffs which in turn is a very vulnerable position. That is complete bullshit. Yes an officer has better, more pressing things to deal with but that shouldn't be an acceptable excuse.
Everything i know and have been taught is that police are here to protect us, and that drawing a firearm let alone using the firearm is a LAST RESORT. This clearly is not the mentality of this particular officer and i do think that action needs to be taken. He should have just earned himself a nice little desk job back at the station.

PJ_Soul

mydogmookieblaylock wrote:

i am totally a dog person - grew up around rots my whole life -- parent still have 2 and one is 160 lbs so i am really bias on this situation.
That being said before i came to this thread and having only read what happened as i can't stomach the video, I was totally outraged and disappointed by the police officer.

After reading through a lot of your posts i can see points on each side. There is plenty of blame to go around.

the number 1 culprit is the dog owner.
The report states the problem was that he was playing his music too loud and the cops had asked him to turn it down several times because it was interfering with the investigation. So Mr. Dog owner - you should respect the authorities and turn it down and move away.
Also in a lot of ways dogs are like children -even the most well behaved can still be unpredictable. So why would you even tempt fate by having your dog around people with guns.
the police man has his share of blame as well. IT IS A DOG! and you have a bunch of guys with guns standing right by you! Unless the video is like a movie clip where the dog is leaping in the air with his teeth about to clamp down and the cop shot him in the face - he was out of line. A real cowardly move. Worst case scenario for that officer was a 1/2 second bite before one of his co-workers would have put a stop to it.
The police did not say that they shot the dog because they felt threatened - they said they shot it to protect the dog owner because he was in cuffs which in turn is a very vulnerable position. That is complete bullshit. Yes an officer has better, more pressing things to deal with but that shouldn't be an acceptable excuse.
Everything i know and have been taught is that police are here to protect us, and that drawing a firearm let alone using the firearm is a LAST RESORT. This clearly is not the mentality of this particular officer and i do think that action needs to be taken. He should have just earned himself a nice little desk job back at the station.

While I think you should watch the video to form an opinion, I agree that using the firearm should ALWAYS be a LAST RESORT, and this cop clearly doesn't think so. Not acceptable.

JonnyPistachio

mydogmookieblaylock wrote:

i am totally a dog person - grew up around rots my whole life -- parent still have 2 and one is 160 lbs so i am really bias on this situation.
That being said before i came to this thread and having only read what happened as i can't stomach the video, I was totally outraged and disappointed by the police officer.

After reading through a lot of your posts i can see points on each side. There is plenty of blame to go around.

the number 1 culprit is the dog owner.
The report states the problem was that he was playing his music too loud and the cops had asked him to turn it down several times because it was interfering with the investigation. So Mr. Dog owner - you should respect the authorities and turn it down and move away.
Also in a lot of ways dogs are like children -even the most well behaved can still be unpredictable. So why would you even tempt fate by having your dog around people with guns.
the police man has his share of blame as well. IT IS A DOG! and you have a bunch of guys with guns standing right by you! Unless the video is like a movie clip where the dog is leaping in the air with his teeth about to clamp down and the cop shot him in the face - he was out of line. A real cowardly move. Worst case scenario for that officer was a 1/2 second bite before one of his co-workers would have put a stop to it.
The police did not say that they shot the dog because they felt threatened - they said they shot it to protect the dog owner because he was in cuffs which in turn is a very vulnerable position. That is complete bullshit. Yes an officer has better, more pressing things to deal with but that shouldn't be an acceptable excuse.
Everything i know and have been taught is that police are here to protect us, and that drawing a firearm let alone using the firearm is a LAST RESORT. This clearly is not the mentality of this particular officer and i do think that action needs to be taken. He should have just earned himself a nice little desk job back at the station.

As hard as it is to watch, I went back and paused it as the first shot rings out. It appears the dog is in mid-air, lunging at the officer.

But the issue I have is, before he shoots, he maneuvers around the other officers who are cuffing the dog owner. In this time, he could've tried his taser if he had one. Again, I dont agree with what he did, but I'm trying to see both sides. I would've probably been bitten by that dog before I shot it, and that makes me think he might have been bitten had he not shot it. Its a very tough situation either way.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Okay. You seem to have an answer for everything here. Four things as I try to let this one go:

1. You have cast judgement on the officers and have deemed them barbaric for defending themselves from a seemingly menacing dog. You say the dog was not challenging them. You say they should have tried a bunch of things instead of shooting it- but never really said what. Your example from your personal experience can't come into play here- the owner was handcuffed and couldn't come to the rescue. The officers are not going to uncuff the guy so that he can control his dog: there are multiple scenarios where this action could be disastrous. I illustrated one, but just use your imagination as to how something like that could backfire dramatically.

2. I would suggest reading up a bit on post mortem nerve reflexes. It might have been what you witnessed during the video- even though you saw a cat from 8 inches from your face that never exhibited residual neural signals. Your dismissal of the notion that this might have been what we witnessed before the dog ceased to move points to a certain level of closed-minded thinking.

3. Why do you ignore the 'tougher to answer' questions such as: would the officers be in the right to defend themselves if the dog bit one of them? And... to that... do they have to wait to get bit before defending themselves?

4. Do you place yourself at risk when you go to work? You seem to speak from the position as one who does. If so... then perhaps I need to reconsider my position. If not... then perhaps you might wish to reconsider yours.

1. I don't believe from what I saw that they needed to defend themselves to that extent, and I did say what they should have tried a lot of times, and they had options. I said they could have let the owner step forward, as he was trying to do, so he could calm the dog down and be between the dog and the cops, and/or the cops should have stepped back a couple of steps to see what the dog did. The owner totally could have come to the rescue simply by stepping forward 3 feet and talking to the dog. No hands needed. And the owner TRIED to do that, but the cops held him back.

2. IMO the dog was alive and in pain after being shot, and I don't think there is any point in us arguing about that. The dog was squealing, and took a while just to fall down. In any case, neither of us are vets, and that whole issue is actually completely separate from the main point anyway, which is that the cop shot the dog and shouldn't have.

3. I never saw anyone ask if they would have been right or wrong in shooting the dog had it bit one of them (I did not read anything in this thread before my first post and I'm sure have not read some posts since then), but I don't find that a hard to answer question at all. If the dog had bitten one of them then he would have been right in shooting it. But it didn't. And didn't even TRY to. If it had even TRIED to bite one of them, shooting MIGHT have been justified, but probably not without them even trying to take a step away from the dog.

4. I am not a cop or a fireman or anything.... but I do place myself at risk in that on a semi-regular basis I deal with volatile, upset, and/or mentally ill or emotionally unstable people, and I often have to tell them what they don't want to here - things that seriously impact their lives at times. I have felt threatened several times in this context. I have had to call security many times while I was fearful for my safety, and I have also taken courses on how to deescalate threatening situations and how to deal with conflict (with people). But I don't actually know why you're asking. If I knitted mittens for a living, I could still have a valid opinion about what happened on that video. I have been attacked by dogs 3 times. One bit me in the face, another jumped on me and scratched my back really badly, one bit my leg. And then there was the stand off I was in with a very sinister rotti that was ready to lunge. So I think I can say that I have experience with dealing with threatening dogs.

Incomplete response. The second question was: do they have to wait to get bit before defending themselves?

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Okay. You seem to have an answer for everything here. Four things as I try to let this one go:

1. You have cast judgement on the officers and have deemed them barbaric for defending themselves from a seemingly menacing dog. You say the dog was not challenging them. You say they should have tried a bunch of things instead of shooting it- but never really said what. Your example from your personal experience can't come into play here- the owner was handcuffed and couldn't come to the rescue. The officers are not going to uncuff the guy so that he can control his dog: there are multiple scenarios where this action could be disastrous. I illustrated one, but just use your imagination as to how something like that could backfire dramatically.

2. I would suggest reading up a bit on post mortem nerve reflexes. It might have been what you witnessed during the video- even though you saw a cat from 8 inches from your face that never exhibited residual neural signals. Your dismissal of the notion that this might have been what we witnessed before the dog ceased to move points to a certain level of closed-minded thinking.

3. Why do you ignore the 'tougher to answer' questions such as: would the officers be in the right to defend themselves if the dog bit one of them? And... to that... do they have to wait to get bit before defending themselves?

4. Do you place yourself at risk when you go to work? You seem to speak from the position as one who does. If so... then perhaps I need to reconsider my position. If not... then perhaps you might wish to reconsider yours.

1. I don't believe from what I saw that they needed to defend themselves to that extent, and I did say what they should have tried a lot of times, and they had options. I said they could have let the owner step forward, as he was trying to do, so he could calm the dog down and be between the dog and the cops, and/or the cops should have stepped back a couple of steps to see what the dog did. The owner totally could have come to the rescue simply by stepping forward 3 feet and talking to the dog. No hands needed. And the owner TRIED to do that, but the cops held him back.

2. IMO the dog was alive and in pain after being shot, and I don't think there is any point in us arguing about that. The dog was squealing, and took a while just to fall down. In any case, neither of us are vets, and that whole issue is actually completely separate from the main point anyway, which is that the cop shot the dog and shouldn't have.

3. I never saw anyone ask if they would have been right or wrong in shooting the dog had it bit one of them (I did not read anything in this thread before my first post and I'm sure have not read some posts since then), but I don't find that a hard to answer question at all. If the dog had bitten one of them then he would have been right in shooting it. But it didn't. And didn't even TRY to. If it had even TRIED to bite one of them, shooting MIGHT have been justified, but probably not without them even trying to take a step away from the dog.

4. I am not a cop or a fireman or anything.... but I do place myself at risk in that on a semi-regular basis I deal with volatile, upset, and/or mentally ill or emotionally unstable people, and I often have to tell them what they don't want to here - things that seriously impact their lives at times. I have felt threatened several times in this context. I have had to call security many times while I was fearful for my safety, and I have also taken courses on how to deescalate threatening situations and how to deal with conflict (with people). But I don't actually know why you're asking. If I knitted mittens for a living, I could still have a valid opinion about what happened on that video. I have been attacked by dogs 3 times. One bit me in the face, another jumped on me and scratched my back really badly, one bit my leg. And then there was the stand off I was in with a very sinister rotti that was ready to lunge. So I think I can say that I have experience with dealing with threatening dogs.

Incomplete response. The second question was: do they have to wait to get bit before defending themselves?

Read again: " If it had even TRIED to bite one of them, shooting MIGHT have been justified..."
I think that answers the question. They at least wait until the dog acts as though it wants to bite them. It didn't.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

JonnyPistachio wrote:

mydogmookieblaylock wrote:

i am totally a dog person - grew up around rots my whole life -- parent still have 2 and one is 160 lbs so i am really bias on this situation.
That being said before i came to this thread and having only read what happened as i can't stomach the video, I was totally outraged and disappointed by the police officer.

After reading through a lot of your posts i can see points on each side. There is plenty of blame to go around.

the number 1 culprit is the dog owner.
The report states the problem was that he was playing his music too loud and the cops had asked him to turn it down several times because it was interfering with the investigation. So Mr. Dog owner - you should respect the authorities and turn it down and move away.
Also in a lot of ways dogs are like children -even the most well behaved can still be unpredictable. So why would you even tempt fate by having your dog around people with guns.
the police man has his share of blame as well. IT IS A DOG! and you have a bunch of guys with guns standing right by you! Unless the video is like a movie clip where the dog is leaping in the air with his teeth about to clamp down and the cop shot him in the face - he was out of line. A real cowardly move. Worst case scenario for that officer was a 1/2 second bite before one of his co-workers would have put a stop to it.
The police did not say that they shot the dog because they felt threatened - they said they shot it to protect the dog owner because he was in cuffs which in turn is a very vulnerable position. That is complete bullshit. Yes an officer has better, more pressing things to deal with but that shouldn't be an acceptable excuse.
Everything i know and have been taught is that police are here to protect us, and that drawing a firearm let alone using the firearm is a LAST RESORT. This clearly is not the mentality of this particular officer and i do think that action needs to be taken. He should have just earned himself a nice little desk job back at the station.

As hard as it is to watch, I went back and paused it as the first shot rings out. It appears the dog is in mid-air, lunging at the officer.

But the issue I have is, before he shoots, he maneuvers around the other officers who are cuffing the dog owner. In this time, he could've tried his taser if he had one. Again, I dont agree with what he did, but I'm trying to see both sides. I would've probably been bitten by that dog before I shot it, and that makes me think he might have been bitten had he not shot it. Its a very tough situation either way.

Going back and looking at it objectively was a good thing to do when really deciding where you stand on this. You have described what I saw: the dog was a little more aggressive than some have made it out to be.

What practices are in place to safeguard police from unnecessary harm? There are procedures in placed that limit the amount of risk an officer needs to face when on duty. With regards to dogs... I guarantee that the practice is to use lethal force if the dog is menacing. I guarantee you they have been trained to do as they did based on the numerous encounters policemen have had where someone was attacked and bitten.

PJ Soul and Unsung... I am not happy with the fact that the dog is dead. The situation was a poor one for the officers to be in. I'm thinking it would be fairer to cast blame towards the owner. None of this had to happen if he had complied like all the other citizens stopping to watch the scene. His belligerence cost his dog its life and the officers a pile of grief.