Hawtorne, Ca Police Kill Dog

[Merkle]

I hate to see any animal harmed like that, regardless of the situation. That video makes me sad.

Did the officers do the right thing? Well, I wasn't there, I don't know all the facts so it isn't for me to say.

 

[Bender1]

I have no way to know if he should have been cuffed for what he was doing (if he was JUST filming, of course not but may be had warrants on him, etc., we don't know) but that is really not the issue. They are obviously engaged in an activity that has them on edge (note the shotguns) and as such, need to control the scene tightly. The cuffing is really irrelevant.

The third cop did EXACTLY what he should have been doing in the situation by providing support to his two fellow officers that were busy with subject. You will notice he also approaches the dog VERY slowly in an effort to get it under control. The dog does what dogs trained to be nasty do and lunges at his hand. The officer responded to protect himself and fellow officers.

Its a shame. It really is. But the owner failed to properly secure his dog and failed to train his dog to listen to his voice commands in every circumstance. His fault. Period.


To pose the question another way:
Should the police officers allowed themselves to be attacked by a dog?

Before you try and debate my points, answer this question.

 

[GTINAPLES]

Lets see what the cop does when this runs at him.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[mustache rash]

If that was one of my dogs I would make it my life's mission to payback that officer in the same manner.

Watching that video has me sick to my stomach.

I pray that officer dies in the most horrific and painful way

 

[razr390]

Okay I conclude with these statements: Both parties made mistakes that day. Could it have have happened in a different way? Could it have happened in a way where the dog wouldn't actually be shot? Yes.

And that's exactly what the owner's lawyer is going to argue against HPD. He will most likely win the lawsuit because of it. Evidence shows a dog being shot, but when two parties make mistakes, who is held more responsible and to a standard? The more professional one, always. (Again example with Paula Deen and a random man on the street saying the N word). If things COULD have happened in a different way, then the lawyer will argue that it should have happened in a different way.

HPD will have a bad time in court with this case.

 

[Bender1]

What mistakes have the police made?

 

[mk6medic]

What mistakes have the police made?

Good luck here, sir. The people against the Officer here don't seem to understand what the job entails and the danger they face every day and rather place higher value on a dogs life than that of a human.

I predict that by the time I wake up, this thread will be locked.

 

[razr390]

What mistakes have the police made?

I typed some stuff up earlier in the topic. But here goes nothing:

1. They should have an officer at the beginning of the barricade to deal with curious people such as the dog's owner.
2. The two officers who came to detain him left their post, presumably an important one linked directly to their operation, (the shotguns/submachine guns they have on them). By leaving their post they could endanger the lives of other people as well.
3. The biggest mistake was the third cop trying to go towards the dog. That will only make the situation worse. The dog was beginning to back off and then the third officer startled the dog again.
4. The second biggest mistake was on all of the officers part together. Of the two that detained him, one should have gone and tried to deter the dog. Prior to detaining him, they should have told the man to go home. But out of all of this, the BIGGEST mistake is this: Since the two officers who detained him saw that the dog was listening to his owner, the third showed up without hearing anything. The other two officers knew it would be fine, and the third officer came in without knowing anything prior to it; from the beginning, I would have handcuffed him (if anything) and let him speak to his dog. The owner clearly has a relationship with the dog and the dog will obey him as well as defend him, as seen in the video. The owner was NOT resisting arrest, and therefore could have been allowed to talk and calm down his own dog.

EDIT:

Locked for what reason? That we are voicing a debate?

I have respect for cops because they put their lives on the line, but mk6medic, your argument says that we are bashing said officer but we don't know what he has to deal with every day, in that argument I respond as such: The officer does go through a lot and sacrifices a lot but in this situation, he didn't need to exert as much as he did. He was not dealing with a hostage situation (God forbid), or anything of such nature.

 

[Bender1]

1. They should have an officer at the beginning of the barricade to deal with curious people such as the dog's owner.

Impossible to make that assertion. We don't know what the scene was or how many officers they had deployed. Notice the first two officers that make contact are walking back from where we can assume the scene is. This indicates that they just had enough officers on scene at that time to deploy.

2. The two officers who came to detain him left their post, presumably an important one linked directly to their operation, (the shotguns/submachine guns they have on them). By leaving their post they could endanger the lives of other people as well.

See above

3. The biggest mistake was the third cop trying to go towards the dog. That will only make the situation worse. The dog was beginning to back off and then the third officer startled the dog again.

WRONG! The dog was starting to calm down but it still needed to be restrained, they couldnt just let it loose.

4. The second biggest mistake was on all of the officers part together. Of the two that detained him, one should have gone and tried to deter the dog.

Wrong. At this point the dog was still in the car AND you need two officers on the subject for safety.

Prior to detaining him, they should have told the man to go home.

Why? Do you know him? Do you have access to his criminal record? Did you search him yourself?

But out of all of this, the BIGGEST mistake is this: Since the two officers who detained him saw that the dog was listening to his owner, the third showed up without hearing anything. The other two officers knew it would be fine, and the third officer came in without knowing anything prior to it;

Doesn't matter. His job is to provide cover for those two and the dog was getting increasingly agitated on his own merits.

from the beginning, I would have handcuffed him (if anything) and let him speak to his dog. The owner clearly has a relationship with the dog and the dog will obey him as well as defend him, as seen in the video. The owner was NOT resisting arrest, and therefore could have been allowed to talk and calm down his own dog.

And you would be one rapidly dead cop. You are making lovely assumptions after the fact rather than in the moment when you have a 90 pound (at least) animal that can rip your throat out getting aggressive with you. That dog never would have calmed down with him cuffed. Period.

It sucks. I love dogs (more than I like most people), but this happens. It is unfortunate to see but the only person at fault here is the owner. His dog was not properly secured in the vehicle. His dog was not well enough voice trained (most aren't so I don't fault him too much for that) and he was somewhere he didn't need to be.

Dogs get pissed off and upset when things happen to their owners that they don't understand. The dog was at as much fault here as the police officer. None. The owner had multiple opportunities to ensure this did not occur, and he decided not to.

 

[Bender1]

The officer does go through a lot and sacrifices a lot but in this situation, he didn't need to exert as much as he did

Yeah Mk6Medic! He was just dealing with a dog that could kill him in a split second. No need to exert force! He should have just sat the dog down so they could talk about their feelings together.

 

[razr390]

Impossible to make that assertion. We don't know what the scene was or how many officers they had deployed. Notice the first two officers that make contact are walking back from where we can assume the scene is. This indicates that they just had enough officers on scene at that time to deploy.


See above


WRONG! The dog was starting to calm down but it still needed to be restrained, they couldnt just let it loose.


Wrong. At this point the dog was still in the car AND you need two officers on the subject for safety.


Why? Do you know him? Do you have access to his criminal record? Did you search him yourself?



Doesn't matter. His job is to provide cover for those two and the dog was getting increasingly agitated on his own merits.



And you would be one rapidly dead cop. You are making lovely assumptions after the fact rather than in the moment when you have a 90 pound (at least) animal that can rip your throat out getting aggressive with you. That dog never would have calmed down with him cuffed. Period.

It sucks. I love dogs (more than I like most people), but this happens. It is unfortunate to see but the only person at fault here is the owner. His dog was not properly secured in the vehicle. His dog was not well enough voice trained (most aren't so I don't fault him too much for that) and he was somewhere he didn't need to be.

Dogs get pissed off and upset when things happen to their owners that they don't understand. The dog was at as much fault here as the police officer. None. The owner had multiple opportunities to ensure this did not occur, and he decided not to.

I agree with the faults, but again what suspicion did they have against the owner that you said he needed to be searched/cleared? Why not detain the other people filming as well, I can count more than 5 other people, directly across the street and the houses across the street from the house in question by the officers.

PS. Don't lock this topic. No one has hurled insults at anyone, etc. I am just trying to have a debate based on the video evidence.

Also, if they had enough officers then they should put one at the beginning of the barricade.

 

[Bender1]

I agree with the faults, but again what suspicion did they have against the owner that you said he needed to be searched/cleared? .

We are not there so its not our position to judge without the facts BUT any time you make contact with anyone in that type of a situation you cuff them and clear them. Period.

Also, if they had enough officers then they should put one at the beginning of the barricade.

You respond to scene FIRST then you redeploy to perimeter. Which appears to be what they were doing. You dont magically have 20 officers all arrive at once.

 

[Merkle]

.It sucks. I love dogs (more than I like most people), but this happens. It is unfortunate to see but the only person at fault here is the owner. His dog was not properly secured in the vehicle. His dog was not well enough voice trained (most aren't so I don't fault him too much for that) and he was somewhere he didn't need to be.

Very well said, this is truly the crux of the argument.

 

[realcyberbob]

Before the third cop came to the scene, before the owner got handcuffed, before the yelling between the cops and dog owner, the very first thing that happened is that owner decided to instigate and begin recording a crime scene. Everyone, except for the owner, was doing what they were supposed to do and stay away from a crime scene and let the police do their job. Is it not possible that the very first action from the owner created a series of events that lead to his dog's death?

I don't like seeing animals die but when a rottweiler lunges/jumps at a police officer, the officers have the right to protect themselves. If a person who didn't speak English lunged at officers in close proximity with a knife (I'm suggesting a knife since a person generally isn't going to bite an officer), would you expect the officers to shoot a warning shot?

 

[razr390]

Very well said, this is truly the crux of the argument.

I agree with Bender on that as well, the owner is completely 90% at fault. But HPD will have a hard time with this case in court, especially if the owner got a good lawyer.

Before the third cop came to the scene, before the owner got handcuffed, before the yelling between the cops and dog owner, the very first thing that happened is that owner decided to instigate and begin recording a crime scene. Everyone, except for the owner, was doing what they were supposed to do and stay away from a crime scene and let the police do their job. Is it not possible that the very first action from the owner created a series of events that lead to his dog's death?

I don't like seeing animals die but when a rottweiler lunges/jumps at a police officer, the officers have the right to protect themselves. If a person who didn't speak English lunged at officers in close proximity with a knife (I'm suggesting a knife since a person generally isn't going to bite an officer), would you expect the officers to shoot a warning shot?

Yes and no. It is not illegal to record a crime scene. If it's a human you would shoot him in the hand/leg, not shoot to kill. I'm sure taking a dog aside, I know that cops do NOT shoot to kill. So respect there.

EDIT: Even if it's not illegal to record a crime scene, if they didn't want any curious George's snooping around they should have placed an officer at the front of the barricade.