I know a former Arizona DPS officer. He was on the SWAT Team, the head firearms instructor, and on a state wide gang unit composed of feds, highway patrol and municipalities. I was talking to him about dogs in raids the other day and he said that gangbangers would tie two pitbulls by the door, far enough to not attack each other but close enough to stay angry and bite someone coming in from both sides. He then described how they had tried to find a way to stop the dogs without killing them. They tried tazing them, flashbangs, pepper spray and batons, but nothing would phase one except for bullets. On one raid, the guy assigned to shoot the dog put 3 bullets from an MP5 into the dog's head. After the owner was handcuffed, the dog walked around the corner, blood dripping down it's face unfazed.

 

The idea that there is a way to stop an angry dog built for fighting, like the one in the video, without shooting it is ridiculous and based on willful ignorance of the subject.

 

I'm going to restrain myself from commenting on how BS the filming charge was though.

'>

I agree that the guy had no reason to be arrested as all he was doing was filming a scene.

 

As for the dog getting killed, it tried to attack the police officer. As you noticed the officer tried to gain control of the dog but it continued to lounge at him and he had no choice but to shoot or be bit. And those dogs can be really dangerous.

I'll be contacting their Lt. on behalf of the dog owner thnkz

 

and

 

Hawthorne, CA Pd better pay up and apologize

 

You are so full of BS.... If you ever get out into the real world, and you see dogs are extremely aggressive ( you need to train dogs to be nice) they will not hesitate to rip someones face off.

Edited July 2, 201312 yr by Darkangel

I'll be contacting their Lt. on behalf of the dog owner thnkz

 

and

 

Hawthorne, CA Pd better pay up and apologize

 

How is it the cops fault that the owner put the dog in a dangerous situation and failed to maintain control of it?

I'll be contacting their Lt. on behalf of the dog owner thnkz

 

and

 

Hawthorne, CA Pd better pay up and apologize

 

 

You should go work for the ASPCA or something.

You should go work for the ASPCA or something.

 

 

You are so full of BS.... If you ever get out into the real world, and you see dogs are extremely aggressive ( you need to train dogs to be nice) they will not hesitate to rip someones face off.

 

 

Aren't you two big bad and tough let's attack the person who has a strong difference of opinion / view,      show's real maturity  on your part

Edited July 2, 201312 yr by K-9 police 9

The shooting of the dog was justified. The dog lunged towards the officer, even when being told to stand down by its owner

Edited July 2, 201312 yr by wmai20

Aren't you two big bad and tough let's attack the person who has a strong difference of opinion / view,      show's real maturity  on your part

 

Not attacking you on your different view, i'm just calling BS on you reporting that incident. Pretty sure its already been reported. What are you going to do? call them up and say "I'm a person studying to be a cop and that force was totally unnecessary I demand that you tell them your sorry!"  Seems a little far fetched if you ask me...

 

 

Also when you called me teenage tough guy, you are so right. Gosh I can't believe how right you are. I'm out here in the real world, all that LT will do is just pretend to care then laugh at you once you hang up the phone. The way you act I can not see you becoming a cop anytime soon...

Edited July 2, 201312 yr by Darkangel

Hey, I calls them as I see them.

 

typical internet teeanage tough guy

 

 

Edited July 2, 201312 yr by K-9 police 9

MODERATOR NOTICE
Cut the flaming. The topic is about a shooting of a dog by police, not childish name calling. Any continued action like this will be met with warnings

Anyways, the use of force will be justified if you like it or not. Here are the rules for Legal Force.

 

1.) Is anyone in danger of death or bodily harm?

2.) Is there a weapon?

3.) Can that weapon be used?

4.) Is there intent? (such as to harm someone)

5.) Is there aggressive actions towards the officer or person.  

 

As long as a few of those rules are met then legal force can be used. (the first 2 have to be involved)  Explained out so people see it in a different form

 

1.) Is anyone in danger of death or bodily harm? (Yes the officer is in threat of bodily harm / death)

 

2.) Is there a weapon (yes the dogs teeth)

 

3.) Can that weapon be used? (yes the dogs teeth) 

 

4.) Is there intent? (dog jumped towards the officer) 

 

5.) Is there aggressive actions towards the officer/person (yes the dog acted aggressively and tried to attack the officer) 

 

 

Edited July 2, 201312 yr by Darkangel

I know the cop was just trying to himself and the other officers. It looks like the dog was trying to bite the officer before the officer shot her firearm. I don't know why dogs do this, but its equivalent to us when we stick our chests out when we want to looks tough. Also, dogs sometimes don't understand what is going on. When something happens to their owner, they would like to protect them and prevent them from harm. In my eyes, I would have to blame the officer. He was just too jumpy and was startled when the dog approached him. Sorry for all the officers out there, but I have to blame this guy.

-

Edited June 21, 20241 yr by tobeymaguire

And plus, the owner had to watch his dog get shot! That's go to be tough on him the most!

Anyways, the use of force will be justified if you like it or not. Here are the rules for Legal Force.

 

1.) Is anyone in danger of death or bodily harm?

2.) Is there a weapon?

3.) Can that weapon be used?

4.) Is there intent? (such as to harm someone)

5.) Is there aggressive actions towards the officer or person.  

 

As long as a few of those rules are met then legal force can be used. (the first 2 have to be involved) 

 

Yes the Use of Force in this video was justified as the dog was posing a threat. A Taser or Pepper Spray would be pretty much ineffective against an angry determined dog, especially one that is seen in the video.

However there are mistakes seen in the video which ultimately leads to a provocation.

The dog was reacting to the fact that its owner was being threatened and as such decided to lunge at the officer's involved. Hind sight is great but simple mistakes and miscalculations lead to something even bigger.

It all depends on the training the police officer received...

 

Cops have Spray and Tazer for this You stupid Human 

 

and the arrest was not RIGHT ! 

A dog can run much faster than a human so pepper spray would likely be ineffective as the dog could latch on and bite before getting a god shot off. Pepper spray also effects the officer at close range, as you get some blowback in your own eyes. That's why you have to get sprayed if you go to the academy. A taser may also be ineffective since both prongs have to hit and pierce the skin.

It all depends on the training the police officer received...

 

 

You gotta consider the fact that it wasn't the officer that was being attacked that tased the dog, but rather another officer. The officer being attacked drew his weapon and likely would have fired if the other officer hadn't intervened. It's much easier for the other officer who isn't trying to fend off a dog with his leg to calmly take out the taser and fire a shot.

I support police officer who shoot dogs to protect them selfs but if they would have never detained or arrested this man that dog would have never jumped out of the car. The man does have a right to video tape police officers doing their duty, but officers use broad written laws saying they can arrest for disorderly conduct or obstruction of the peace but the man should have not been arrested or detained and the officers would not have had to shoot the dog.