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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
If the unrestrained wild animal hadn't escalated the situation, the dog wouldn't have attacked.
Citizen's failure to control his dog gets the dog killed. Any questions?
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.
He was perfectly in control of the dog until the cops interfered with his witnessing of them.
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 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?
"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.
...
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.
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
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.
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.