Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Crablezworth wrote:
And had the police simply continued chatting amongst themselves nothing would have happened. Perhaps they were dicussing how dangerous it is to casually stand around a suburban neighbourhood with only submachine guns to protect themselves with...

Perhaps they where discussing possible points of attack where gang members could of popped out with illegal guns.

or maybe there where deciding whether or not to go to subway or quiz-nos afterwards.

Hate the cops or not he should of made sure that his dog couldn't escape then this whole event would of been a non issue.

 Crablezworth wrote:
And had the police simply continued chatting amongst themselves nothing would have happened. Perhaps they were dicussing how dangerous it is to casually stand around a suburban neighbourhood with only submachine guns to protect themselves with...

And had the man not been shouting "WHY ARE THERE NO BLACK COPS" or "THIS IS A CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION" in an area where a raid was in progress, he would probably have not drawn any attention to himself.

Had the man not been known to the department with a criminal record and multiple civil suits against the department, including a claim of a "broken rib" after his arrest during a domestic dispute and had the man not seemingly stopped and gotten out of his rental car with his dog at a police gathering point near a raid to shout "WHY ARE THERE NO BLACK COPS" or "THIS IS A CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION" there would have been no issue.

With those facts in play though? This guy was trying to fish for a response from the police, and he got it.
Sucks for his dog, but it is great for him as now he gets to go for another civil suit against the police who will probably settle.

Purple Saturday wrote:

A rottweiler was charging at them... They didn't just say "Hey, lets go arrest that guy and shoot his dog."

There was a lot of things going on here. Why not examine all of the facts, instead of building your own picture off of the misleading title of the thread.

I did watch the video. Pretty standard treatment of bystanders by police. I know police apologists abound, and Law abiding citizens are their most likely champions, but they really mishandled the situation. The police DO deal with this sort of thing all the time, so you think they'd be better at it. They had no right to arrest that man.

Fixed that for ya.

Purple Saturday wrote:

A rottweiler was charging at them... They didn't just say "Hey, lets go arrest that guy and shoot his dog."

There was a lot of things going on here. Why not examine all of the facts, instead of building your own picture off of the misleading title of the thread.

I did watch the video. Pretty standard treatment of bystanders by police. I know police apologists abound, and wealthy white men are their most likely champions, but they really mishandled the situation. The police DO deal with this sort of thing all the time, so you think they'd be better at it. They had no right to arrest that man.

Actually, most of the people who are "police apologists" are people who y'know...do not behave like morons to the police.

I heard power worship is a great hobby


In all honesty, is it at all possible for any of you to realize that making the case that this individual was disrupting the police's ability to do their job is just plain horsegak? Do you really think that's gonna work in court?

If you can't, we'll try a different approach, say this individual wins his lawsuit, how much is it going to cost the tax payers? How much is too much? How much $ is it worth spending before you change your minds on the whole thing and start to think, maybe next time police can put on some big boy pants and actually understand the message behind the whole sticks and stones thing.

Understand, he did not approach police, they approached him. That says a lot.

If you cannot actually present a legitimate argument Crab without thinly veiled insults, why did you even bother posting this video?

You clearly did not even read your own article or the links contained within it.
Even a cursory reading should have made it clear that your title is misleading and that you would be exhibiting a serious lack of understanding about the situation.

 Kanluwen wrote:
If you cannot actually present a legitimate argument Crab without thinly veiled insults, why did you even bother posting this video?

You clearly did not even read your own article or the links contained within it.
Even a cursory reading should have made it clear that your title is misleading and that you would be exhibiting a serious lack of understanding about the situation.

please avoid making this "about me" thankyou

 Crablezworth wrote:
I heard power worship is a great hobby


In all honesty, is it at all possible for any of you to realize that making the case that this individual was disrupting the police's ability to do their job is just plain horsegak? Do you really think that's gonna work in court?

If you can't, we'll try a different approach, say this individual wins his lawsuit, how much is it going to cost the tax payers? How much is too much? How much $ is it worth spending before you change your minds on the whole thing and start to think, maybe next time police can put on some big boy pants and actually understand the message behind the whole sticks and stones thing.

Understand, he did not approach police, they approached him. That says a lot.

Crab, let's look at this another way, what would have happened if one of the cops had been killed because this guy distracted him at a crucial time in the raid? It was horrible that the dog got shot, but his owner was putting himself in a fairly dangerous situation. It wasn't that he was just yelling at the cops, but that he was walking around the police vehicles, practically into the middle of the action where an officer could potentially get killed trying to protect him from any gunfire that might have happened.
There were other people on the scene, filming, but they were no where near as close as this guy was.

Relapse wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
I heard power worship is a great hobby


In all honesty, is it at all possible for any of you to realize that making the case that this individual was disrupting the police's ability to do their job is just plain horsegak? Do you really think that's gonna work in court?

If you can't, we'll try a different approach, say this individual wins his lawsuit, how much is it going to cost the tax payers? How much is too much? How much $ is it worth spending before you change your minds on the whole thing and start to think, maybe next time police can put on some big boy pants and actually understand the message behind the whole sticks and stones thing.

Understand, he did not approach police, they approached him. That says a lot.

Crab, let's look at this another way, what would have happened if one of the cops had been killed because this guy distracted him at a crucial time in the raid?

By that logic one officer should have arrested the other for talking to him and distracting his ability to shoulder his rifle and keep overwatch of the situation. But his submachine gun was not pressed against his shoulder and his attention was on his fellow officer engaging him in conversation.


These were uniform officers casually walking around the perimeter and the dog owner kept the same distance that the other individual to the left did, the officers approached him, he did not approach the officers.

The situation looked fairly under control, enough for officers to leave cuffed individuals to sit on a curb, any of whom could have certainly attempted to flee. They were alone sitting on the curb at the start of the video without the two officers in close proximity to them. The officers later casually walk over and stood next to the cuffed individuals sitting on the curb and engage eachother in conversation.

The whole "him yelling stuff" could have done something, if it had caused an issue, something that affected the officers ability to do their jobs and as such breaking the law I would understand.

No he didn't, he walk right around the police vehicles.

Guy walked out behind the unoccupied police vehicles and back to the corner. Sorry to hurt your gentle feeling but his ass be zipped cuffed. You do not walk around behind vehicles on a raid. The possibility of distracting a cop on the raid is high. Basically you making someone look out the box instead of keeping eye's in the box. As for the dog. Cop tried twice to determined the attitude of the dog. Three shots into the Rottweiler. Even the bystanders knew what was going to happen. You know quite a few Rotts have somewhat a nasty temper right?

I've a feeling though your convinced US LEO, US Military, and US Gov't probably are jack booted thugs eh

I've no feeling towards the dog being I killed enough feral dogs in Afghanistan

 Jihadin wrote:
I've a feeling though your convinced US LEO, US Military, and US Gov't probably are jack booted thugs eh

I'm convinced that anyone acting accordingly can fit that description, I don't much care about a thug's choice of footware though.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I've a feeling though your convinced US LEO, US Military, and US Gov't probably are jack booted thugs eh

I'm convinced that anyone acting accordingly can fit that description.

Are you ignoring the fact he was putting himself in harms way and forcing the officers to act by walking around the police vehicles?

 Jihadin wrote:
Guy walked out behind the unoccupied police vehicles and back to the corner. Sorry to hurt your gentle feeling but his ass be zipped cuffed. You do not walk around behind vehicles on a raid. The possibility of distracting a cop on the raid is high. Basically you making someone look out the box instead of keeping eye's in the box. As for the dog. Cop tried twice to determined the attitude of the dog. Three shots into the Rottweiler. Even the bystanders knew what was going to happen. You know quite a few Rotts have somewhat a nasty temper right?

I've a feeling though your convinced US LEO, US Military, and US Gov't probably are jack booted thugs eh

I've no feeling towards the dog being I killed enough feral dogs in Afghanistan

Feral dogs are dangerous, i wouldnt either.
Also, the first two might not be bullies, but the last one definitely is.

Relapse wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I've a feeling though your convinced US LEO, US Military, and US Gov't probably are jack booted thugs eh

I'm convinced that anyone acting accordingly can fit that description.

Are you ignoring the fact he was putting himself in harms way and forcing the officers to act by walking around the police vehicles?

Seeing as neither officer even seemed to notice him doing that I can't see that being a justification.

Think the cop got nailed by the rott on his non firing hand though. It was real close and freaking fast. Still though that was good discipline. Just three shots and not a "pray n spray"

I admit I would have "jack booted" him. Except I be aiming at him down my barrel along with a couple more troops. Made him get on his knee's and have both hands on top of his head fingers lace and leg crossed. Stick an ankle between his ankles to prevent him uncrossing his leg and grasped all fingers maintaining a tight control. Mind you I will not get between my Shooter(s) and the "suspect". He would forever consider me gay because I nor my troops are not afraid to feel up guy butt crack and his "Mr. Happy". If I feel he is being...say....angry towards me...I just squeeze the fingers till he comply and continue the body search. Then we get him lay flat and then zip cuff x 3 his ankle (he can shuffle) and zip cuff if hands behind his back and then place a sandbag over his head

BTW anyone else notice none of the cops aimed their Sub-auto at the guy....

So do not forget to pick up that empty water bottle, silence is guilt, and I am always correct in Force Protection

edit
The third officer did. The one that walked between the police vehicles. The Shooter of the dog. He was the guard on the vehicles.

Is that how th military deal with situations like that?

 Crablezworth wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I've a feeling though your convinced US LEO, US Military, and US Gov't probably are jack booted thugs eh

I'm convinced that anyone acting accordingly can fit that description.

Are you ignoring the fact he was putting himself in harms way and forcing the officers to act by walking around the police vehicles?

Seeing as neither officer even seemed to notice him doing that I can't see that being a justification.

How do you know he wasn't noticed? The fact is he was yelling before he went over by the cars, but it was only after he went by them that the police came over.

Is that how th military deal with situations like that?

What situation? The one I describe above? Its how I would handle the situation. Being that I have troops looking in and out on a cordon and search. Why are you or for Gawdsake any of you all want to walk into my AO (Area of Operation).


Mind you have chemo drugs (treatment this morning) and pain meds running through me right now. I've no idea what your talking about

Hoping that no one from Canada calls the cops on me.....

 Jihadin wrote:
Mind you have chemo drugs (treatment this morning) and pain meds running through me right now.

That sucks dude, a friend of mine recently lost her father to cancer. I hope your health improves.

 Necroshea wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Purple Saturday wrote:
You should be able to shout anything you want to at the police, anytime, without fear that they will shoot your dog.

A rottweiler was charging at them... They didn't just say "Hey, lets go arrest that guy and shoot his dog."

There was a lot of things going on here. Why not examine all of the facts, instead of building your own picture off of the misleading title of the thread.

Well, actually, it ran at them then stopped. Only when the officer lunged at it did it jump up and snap at him. I'm not saying it wasn't an aggressive posture, but still, for reasons beyond my understanding, he tried to grab a large dog. When he didn't like how the dog reacted, he shot it.

And this is exactly my viewpoint. The dog was warning the officers about them manhandling his alpha. Dogs protect packmates, it's what they do.

Look, I'm not gonna apologize for the guy or anything but when a law enforcement feels that he can shoot MY dog for attempting to defend me you can bet your ass that I will be extremy distraught.

Besides, what's next LEO's believing they can shoot anyone who has a threatening tone or posture?

If the guy had properly secured his dog in the vehicle it wouldn't have happened. We don't even know if the police were arresting the guy, all we know is that they were cuffing him.

sqir666 wrote:

 Necroshea wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Purple Saturday wrote:
You should be able to shout anything you want to at the police, anytime, without fear that they will shoot your dog.

A rottweiler was charging at them... They didn't just say "Hey, lets go arrest that guy and shoot his dog."

There was a lot of things going on here. Why not examine all of the facts, instead of building your own picture off of the misleading title of the thread.

Well, actually, it ran at them then stopped. Only when the officer lunged at it did it jump up and snap at him. I'm not saying it wasn't an aggressive posture, but still, for reasons beyond my understanding, he tried to grab a large dog. When he didn't like how the dog reacted, he shot it.

And this is exactly my viewpoint. The dog was warning the officers about them manhandling his alpha. Dogs protect packmates, it's what they do.

Look, I'm not gonna apologize for the guy or anything but when a law enforcement feels that he can shoot MY dog for attempting to defend me you can bet your ass that I will be extremy distraught.

Besides, what's next LEO's believing they can shoot anyone who has a threatening tone or posture?

It was a tense situation made worse by the idiocy of the owner, who had previous run ins, walking around by police vehicles during the course of a raid while trying to push the buttons of the officers on the scene while putting himself in danger. Rather than risk him getting hurt or killed or worse, an officer, they decided to arrest him so they didn't have to worry about what stupid thing he would next do. At that point, his dog threatened, then attacked, forcing the police to shoot it. A sad and wasteful end for what seemes like a good and loyal dog, but the owner set events in motion by intruding into a danger zone, putting the police at risk.

You notice everyone else was across the street...except the bald headed white guy that was on Imadummy left by the house...he kept a good distance. Imadummy just had to go near LEO vehicles on a raid. Granted the two LEO officers didn't see him but one thing a cop is not without...is comms. Cannot outrun a radio signal

 Jihadin wrote:
You notice everyone else was across the street...except the bald headed white guy that was on Imadummy left by the house...he kept a good distance. Imadummy just had to go near LEO vehicles on a raid. Granted the two LEO officers didn't see him but one thing a cop is not without...is comms. Cannot outrun a radio signal

Yup, I don't imagine in a situation like that, they would leave any blind spots. Just because those two were focused on some other area in the situation doesn't mean they didn't have someone covering the area the dog owner intruded into. My guess is he was looking for a law suit from reading about his past with the police.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If you listened you can hear him yelling things at the cops. Such as "why are there no black cops here?" or(before he got arrested) "This is a civil rights violation"

And that had what affect on the two officers doing their job>?

If you were not so obviously invested in your viewpoint of police as "heavy handed thugs", you would understand that the individual in question is doing something very common when police raid areas with significant populations of one ethnicity or another. The goal of the guy filming it is to provoke a confrontation between himself and the police, usually in the hopes of inciting something more from the populace.

It is the intent of the individual to start something up, and police are usually very aware of it during situations such as raids.

Kan is absolutely right. If what was said about the guy shouting things at the police is true (I won't watch this video), then unlike in situations where police are actually being heavy handed thugs, it would seem as though this was just a bid at antagonizing police that backfired.

I actually feel more bad about the dog being shot than if the guy would have been shot. The dog was just trying to be a good dog, and do what dogs do. Humans should know better.

How it's even possible to comment one way or another without watching the video is beyond me.

Did YOU watch the videos you post or read the article?

The man in question, who was "arrested for filming" has a record of domestic violence and civil suits against the Hawthorne police department.
The man in question had also apparently stopped his car and gotten his dog out SPECIFICALLY to film the raid in progress and in the process started questioning "Why there was no black cops" and shouting about the raid being a "civil rights violation".

Still want to say that this was all just the police at fault, or are you willing to wise up and realize that he was trying to stir the pot?

Have you ever been to Hawthorne? I have. Police should not entertain such things as this guy was doing, especially in that area, in a region with a history of very clear racial tensions. The guy with the dog should have been ignored. Police behaving like it was an upperclass or other quiet suburb was the problem. That they tried to overstep their authority got a dog killed. The owner put the dog in the car when the police approached. The police did absolutely NOTHING to defuse the situation. Instead, they escalated it, in a way that they should KNOW would provoke an animal known to be a defensive animal.

That dog was perfectly fine and cheerful the whole time until his owner was threatened. It doesn't take a dog whisperer to think about the threats in a situation, and defuse it to prevent damage to property, which a dog is under law, sad to say. Based on the video, the police were wrong because they escalated a non-threat into a threat.

edit- clarify

 Gymnogyps wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If you listened you can hear him yelling things at the cops. Such as "why are there no black cops here?" or(before he got arrested) "This is a civil rights violation"

And that had what affect on the two officers doing their job>?

If you were not so obviously invested in your viewpoint of police as "heavy handed thugs", you would understand that the individual in question is doing something very common when police raid areas with significant populations of one ethnicity or another. The goal of the guy filming it is to provoke a confrontation between himself and the police, usually in the hopes of inciting something more from the populace.

It is the intent of the individual to start something up, and police are usually very aware of it during situations such as raids.

Kan is absolutely right. If what was said about the guy shouting things at the police is true (I won't watch this video), then unlike in situations where police are actually being heavy handed thugs, it would seem as though this was just a bid at antagonizing police that backfired.

I actually feel more bad about the dog being shot than if the guy would have been shot. The dog was just trying to be a good dog, and do what dogs do. Humans should know better.

How it's even possible to comment one way or another without watching the video is beyond me.

Did YOU watch the videos you post or read the article?

The man in question, who was "arrested for filming" has a record of domestic violence and civil suits against the Hawthorne police department.
The man in question had also apparently stopped his car and gotten his dog out SPECIFICALLY to film the raid in progress and in the process started questioning "Why there was no black cops" and shouting about the raid being a "civil rights violation".

Still want to say that this was all just the police at fault, or are you willing to wise up and realize that he was trying to stir the pot?

Have you ever been to Hawthorne? I have. Police should not entertain such things as this guy was doing, especially in that area, in a region with a history of very clear racial tensions. The guy with the dog should have been ignored. Police behaving like it was an upperclass or other quiet suburb was the problem. That they tried to overstep their authority got a dog killed. The owner put the dog in the car when the police approached. The police did absolutely NOTHING to defuse the situation. Instead, they escalated it, in a way that they should KNOW would provoke an animal known to be a defensive animal.

That dog was perfectly fine and cheerful the whole time until his owner was threatened. It doesn't take a dog whisperer to think about the threats in a situation, and defuse it to prevent damage to property, which a dog is under law, sad to say. Based on the video, the police were wrong because they escalated a non-threat into a threat.

edit- clarify

I don't call a guy with a police history, going in around police cars during a raid, a non threat.

Hold Relapse. He just stayed behind the police vehicles. So Imadummy head was visual but not the rest of his body. The third officer I'm getting the vibe he's been "Down Range" by the way he moved towards Imadummy. He stayed behind cover (LEO vehicles) till he needed to go into the open...notice he always stayed to the side of the other two when the rott came out. I think he also bumped the chubby officer on his right to keep out of his LoS. . The other good thing was the two coming down the side walk didn't do so covering Imadummy under muzzle. To those who think LEO are the "Bad" guys here you cannot judge the situation unless you been in similar situations.

 Jihadin wrote:
Hold Relapse. He just stayed behind the police vehicles. So Imadummy head was visual but not the rest of his body. The third officer I'm getting the vibe he's been "Down Range" by the way he moved towards Imadummy. He stayed behind cover (LEO vehicles) till he needed to go into the open...notice he always stayed to the side of the other two when the rott came out. I think he also bumped the chubby officer on his right to keep out of his LoS. . The other good thing was the two coming down the side walk didn't do so covering Imadummy under muzzle. To those who think LEO are the "Bad" guys here you cannot judge the situation unless you been in similar situations.

With him by the cars, how were the police to know he wasn't scoping for weapons? Like you say, there was a lot happening there. The last thing the police needed was one more jackass to keep track of in a potentialy dangerous circumstance.

Imadummy also going to lose the lawsuit to since everything was videoed and shows he was clearly in the wrong.