See, the way civil rights progressed in this country was by people standing up and exercising their rights at "poor" times. The 1st amendment doesn't apply only when it's convenient for society. What does the guy get? Probably a shit ton of money.
UPDATE: The man who was arrested, Leon Rosby, was charged with obstructing officers.
According to CBS:
Attorney Michael Gulden said his client Leon Rosby was watching and taking video of the Hawthorne SWAT team when police claimed Rosby was obstructing officers during the barricade.
Rosby is seen in video footage walking with the dog – which appeared to be a Rottweiler – near several patrol cars to capture the scene on his phone.
After an exchange with nearby officers, Rosby is heard saying the words, “civil rights violation” before returning the dog to his vehicle.
As officers begin to proceed toward Rosby, he also begins walking in the direction of the officers and is then taken into custody without any further exchange.
According to the Daily Breeze, Rosby was arrested because he had refused to turn down his car radio, which can be heard in the video.
The shooting occurred about 7:15 p.m. Sunday at 137th Street and Jefferson Avenue about two hours after police surrounded a house where a gunman had robbed two people inside. A crowd of spectators gathered in response to the large police response, which included several police cars and the department’s Bearcat armored vehicle.
As some, including resident Gabriel Martinez, aimed their cellphones at the scene to record it, Rosby drove up in his rented black Mazda. Swain said Rosby stopped in the intersection with music blaring from his windows. Officers told him to turn down the music because they were trying to hear what was happening down the street. Rosby pulled forward, parked and got out with his dog, but left the music still playing loudly.
“It’s distracting the officers,” Swain said. “It’s interfering with what they are able to hear. It’s not just a party call. It’s an armed robbery call. The officers need to hear what’s going on with the people being called out of the residence. That music in his car is bleeding over and it’s distracting them.”
You're right, I wouldn't want to be the one documenting the police. My point is that SOMEONE should - that's why we have freedom of the press in the first place, to hold government accountable for its actions.
I actually had a good debate w/ Mrs. Ciba about this and other "contempt of cop" incidents. I asked if he was wearing a vest labeled "KIRO 7" if she would consider the actions equally stupid. She said no.
My question is - if this were a member of a TV News crew, would we consider the person to be "putting themselves in a shitty situation" as part of their profession?
I'm a dog lover and I don't take issue with the police shooting the dog in that particular situation. It's a large dangerous breed that was running amok and clearly attacked the cops. They have every right to take it down.
I have a big problem with the cops arresting the dog's owner like that. With that video as evidence that he didn't do anything that warranted arrest he's going to own their ass.
ok with this following information, I blame the dog owner for his dog dying
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2...st-man-for-video-recording-then-kill-his-dog/
So does that money get this guys dog back if it is indeed dead? People make sacrifices yes like you state above that make a difference...is this situation one of those that will make a difference or just a situation that will result in a dead animal and a lawsuit as a result? Is this considered a poor times 'incident'?
Yet I don't see anyone calling out the members saying the cops should be burned alive, and their families killed. There is some sick motherfuckers on this board that need the ban hammer.
Against my better judgement, I watched the video. The dog did go after the cop and he was justified in putting it down. Sad, but I blame the jackass owner.
Agree with that too, again, way over the top reaction. I did hear him shout "why are there no black cops here", which is WTF diff what color cop's are at the scene?, they supposedly asked him to turn down his music and he refused to do so. I'm now thinking he did not resist the detention because he saw a paycheck if he got arrested, tragically, the dog paid the price reacting how most dogs would react if they sense their "pack" leader is in trouble. I guess we'll all get to see how this plays out on national media over the next few days..
He is well within his right to make a statement like that. The wisdom of the comment is irrelevant.
I'll agree with what I saw that they shouldn't have detained the guy in the first place. However, that is exactly why I broke the issues down into separate issues, because they are separate.Had the terrorist not attempted to grab the dog it wouldn't have lunged at the terrorist. My point stands: the dog was not aggressive (until the terrorists provoked it).
Citizens are free to question the police. The officers involved were not directly handling the situation inside the building, in fact, I believe there placement outside the building was specifically to control the crowd which is likely to gather. Their handling of the crowd was extremely poor.Agree with that too, again, way over the top reaction. I did hear him shout "why are there no black cops here", which is WTF diff what color cop's are at the scene?, they supposedly asked him to turn down his music and he refused to do so. I'm now thinking he did not resist the detention because he saw a paycheck if he got arrested, tragically, the dog paid the price reacting how most dogs would react if they sense their "pack" leader is in trouble. I guess we'll all get to see how this plays out on national media over the next few days..
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.A man who the police do not know pulls up to the scene of a crime while they are still trying to secure the area. Instead of leaving his dog in the car with the windows rolled up enough to keep him from jumping out, the man brings the dog with him. The man paces around the police vehicles, with his dog, and makes a spectacle of himself filming the officers.
On top of all this (if the link above is accurate) he was pumping load music from his car.
I'll back down a bit from the arrest being clearly unwarranted, but I'd like to read more than the official statement.
To those who are blaming the dog owner:
It's perfectly normal to have the windows down on a hot summer day. What was he supposed to do? Get in his car and roll up the windows? Wouldn't that have been perceived as the guy trying to get away by the cops, most likely making the situation worse? He put the dog in his car before going over to talk with the officers. He had no idea he was going to be detained. And without that foresight, there was no reason for him to secure his dog further, since he didn't expect the officers to take any action causing his dog to get excited and jump out the window.
I missed this post, and I understand it's point clearly. I don't think the initial detention was valid and I see how the results are their fault since essentially they started it. However, I think most people are reacting to the police shooting the dog not the initial detention. It's akin to criminals being responsible for all actions committed during a crime even if they weren't directly responsible.Here is the thing: the cops are responsible for any forseeable damages as a result of an illegal arrest/detention.
Why did they detain the guy?
None of the comments here or in the youtube / other threads even seem to mention the fact that the police are responding to an armed robbers, escorting out hostages along the way. People are quick to say screw the police and that they're power hungry...yet the police were there responding to a crime, putting themselves in danger along the way.
Regardless of whether or not the dog owner should have been arrested and whether the dog really had to be shot, these police officers were there trying to respond to a crime to protect people.
Everyone is stuck on the shooting of the dog.
The REAL issue is why was the dog-owner arrested in the first place when filming the police is legal? He was a great distance away from the crime scene and was not getting in anyone's way. Even if he said something to the police, you are protected by the 1st.
If the police didn't illegally arrest him, none of this would have played out.
Police are so scared of the public filming them abusing their power.
Also note one of the officers carrying what looks like some sort of SMG automatic rifle (sorry, I am no gun expert). The militarization of the police is another thing to worry about. These same incompetent, power tripping officers will be running the future police state of America and they are making sure they are properly equipped.