One, I don't think this topic should even be here as the issue of shooting an attacking dog has been here before and it leads to the exact same arguments.

 

Two, I will not go on and argue if the police are in the right or not, but I will say that Rottweilers are very protective of their owners. While they are also very smart, they do not know the difference between a police officer and a civilian. You can't blame the dog for attacking as it was only protecting its owner. My stepfather and mother had a Rottweiler (Ace - RIP) who was trained to be a very good dog, but he was also extremely protective. Now they have another (Viper) who is only about a year old and is already very protective.

I've been keeping an eye on this as a dog owner, and someone going through the process of becoming a police officer. I've loved animals all my life, and i would absolutely love to be an ASPCA Law Enforcement officer.

 

From what I've read about the situation, the police were in the right to do what they did. In both the shooting of the dog, and the arrest of the man. The man was at the scene filming for most of the day, and blaring loud music from his car. This disrupted the police in the area conducting an arrest warrant, and as a result the police decided to arrest him after apprehending their suspects. 

 

In my opinion, the guy was completely wrong for bringing his dog there in the first place. I would NEVER bring my German Shepherd to a scene like that, and start causing a ruckus. And if i happened to stumble upon that kind of scene while driving / walking with my dog, it's obvious that it would be no place for my dog, and i would keep on going. And that's exactly what this guy should have done.

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

 

 

Doesn't matter on the training, that cop just got lucky. There has been stories about pit bulls and other aggressive dogs that have been tased shot ect.. and they still attack the person. Also depends on the Dog breed in that video it looked like a black lab or something like that. Rather just shoot the thing then taking a chance and getting my arm ripped open or off...

Cops have Spray and Tazer for this You stupid Human 

 

and the arrest was not RIGHT ! 

 

You are right! He should have just told the dog to sit and stay, then calmly walk to his cruiser, get out the wiffel ball bat and then hit the dog with it when he jumped at him again!*

 

 

*This is a sarcastic comment and is in no way my actual opinion on this subject.

 

 

He was justified. After serving 5 years as a military police officer, i would have shot him too- (real opinion)

the cop is in the right for both actions... to my understanding the man was yelling at the cops and making an already tense situation worse (can be articulated as obstruction) and taser/mace don't do much against dogs they often get back up and keep on swinging...

also posting this on a page with a load of "pro" police community members is like asking to get slapped in the face by a mans Johnson...

I fully agree that a taser would have been better. Debating whether or not it would have worked is futile, as there are multiple instances of it working/failing on attacking dogs. However, the officer who shoots the dog doesn't appear to have one on his belt. At least one of the arresting officers has a taser, but they are more focused on the detainee. This situation could have been handled better by all parties involved. The arresting officer should have let his partner hold the suspect while he prepped the taser should the dog become aggressive. The officer who shoots the dog shouldn't have stuck his hand near the dog, rather maintain his ground while keeping his extremities away from the dog. Should the dog attack then, the taser/firearm should be employed. Given what went down, I feel the officer used his firearm a bit too early but justified nonetheless. Also notice where the cop who shoots the dog comes from. The first time he appears is around the 2:57 mark. This is a full 30 seconds after the guy puts his dog in the car. Before that, he was off to the side. It's highly probable that he was inside the targeted house and did not see the man put his dog in the car, thus not knowing it was his dog.

 

Edited for grammar.

Edited July 3, 201312 yr by JazzBlackBelt

I take back my earlier comment about the filming. After watching this video, the owner originally blocked off the street while blasting music. He was then told to turn it down. While some may claim that this was unwarranted, it was a barricaded suspect situation with an armed robbery suspect. The music would decrease tactical awareness and jeopardize the safety of the civilians and the officers. Animal control couldn't of been called, because they would've been half an hour away, and even if they did show up, it was a barricaded suspect and they wouldn't of been allowed in the area anyways.
Here's the video setting up the scene:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffwxaTpJTyI

I fully agree that a taser would have been better. Debating whether or not it would have worked is futile, as there are multiple instances of it working/failing on attacking dogs. However, the officer who shoots the dog doesn't appear to have one on his belt. At least one of the arresting officers has a taser, but they are more focused on the detainee. This situation could have been handled better by all parties involved. The arresting officer should have let his partner hold the suspect while he prepped the taser should the dog become aggressive. The officer who shoots the dog shouldn't have stuck his hand near the dog, rather maintain his ground while keeping his extremities away from the dog. Should the dog attack then, the taser/firearm should be employed. Given what went down, I feel the officer used his firearm a bit too early but justified nonetheless. Also notice where the cop who shoots the dog comes from. The first time he appears is around the 2:57 mark. This is a full 30 seconds after the guy puts his dog in the car. Before that, he was off to the side. It's highly probable that he was inside the targeted house and did not see the man put his dog in the car, thus not knowing it was his dog.

 

Edited for grammar.

 

When officers make arrests, it is two officers on the suspect and another providing cover. The one providing cover is the one who has to initially respond to any threats due to the other officers' hands being occupied. I already covered the ineffectiveness of tazers and any other less lethal options against aggressive dogs. The only thing I could think of besides shooting it that would do something would be a beanbag shotgun, but that would most likely permanently cripple a dog or kill it.

I take back my earlier comment about the filming. After watching this video, the owner originally blocked off the street while blasting music. He was then told to turn it down. While some may claim that this was unwarranted, it was a barricaded suspect situation with an armed robbery suspect. The music would decrease tactical awareness and jeopardize the safety of the civilians and the officers. Animal control couldn't of been called, because they would've been half an hour away, and even if they did show up, it was a barricaded suspect and they wouldn't of been allowed in the area anyways.

Here's the video setting up the scene:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffwxaTpJTyI

 

When officers make arrests, it is two officers on the suspect and another providing cover. The one providing cover is the one who has to initially respond to any threats due to the other officers' hands being occupied. I already covered the ineffectiveness of tazers and any other less lethal options against aggressive dogs. The only thing I could think of besides shooting it that would do something would be a beanbag shotgun, but that would most likely permanently cripple a dog or kill it.

 

Like I said before, there are multiple instances of tasing dogs proving effective/ineffective. Your account is one that suggests ineffective, the video up a few posts suggests effective. I'm a little skeptical about the 3 bullets into the head of a pitbull story, but it's entirely possible that their owners shot them up with substances that would increase aggressiveness and resistance to harm. As for the third officer, he doesn't show up to the arrest site until ten seconds after the guy is cuffed. Once he does appear, he barely glances at the arresting officers and heads straight for his cruiser to open the back door. That's not the type of cover I would want while making an arrest. This guy is more likely the "transport" officer for the suspect as it appears the other two were tasked with something down the street and not able to take a suspect in. I want to be clear when I say that I'm not attacking the shooting, just the officer's reaction to the dog in the first place. The dog was backing off after the first time it moved toward them, but the officer put his hand near its face which it saw as a threat. If a dog lunged at me like that I wouldn't hesitate to shoot. But then again I wouldn't stick my hand in its face in the first place.

Like I said before, there are multiple instances of tasing dogs proving effective/ineffective. Your account is one that suggests ineffective, the video up a few posts suggests effective. I'm a little skeptical about the 3 bullets into the head of a pitbull story, but it's entirely possible that their owners shot them up with substances that would increase aggressiveness and resistance to harm. As for the third officer, he doesn't show up to the arrest site until ten seconds after the guy is cuffed. Once he does appear, he barely glances at the arresting officers and heads straight for his cruiser to open the back door. That's not the type of cover I would want while making an arrest. This guy is more likely the "transport" officer for the suspect as it appears the other two were tasked with something down the street and not able to take a suspect in. I want to be clear when I say that I'm not attacking the shooting, just the officer's reaction to the dog in the first place. The dog was backing off after the first time it moved toward them, but the officer put his hand near its face which it saw as a threat. If a dog lunged at me like that I wouldn't hesitate to shoot. But then again I wouldn't stick my hand in its face in the first place.

 

It's because pitbulls have extremely thick skulls. Like I said, 2/3 cops were busy detaining the owner. There was only one cop left to cover the otherwise occupied cops, so the only option would be a gun. A tazer sounds good, but it isn't guaranteed to do anything. For it to be effective, both prongs must hit, and if it misses it takes a while to reload. A dog is a small, fast moving target making hitting one more difficult. The only option to defend the other two cops was a gun, regardless of how politically incorrect it is.

Stupid cops? Did you even watch the fucking video? People like you make me sick. The dog CLEARLY takes a lounge towards the cop to bite him. I am a dog lover myself but even i can see that this was justified, the cops life was in danger and it was him or the dog. Maybe something else could have been done but in this situation it looks like that was the first and only thing that could have been done. Maybe if the stupid fucking owner wasnt so nosy and getting himseld jammed up it wouldnt have happened. I dont understand how anyone can say its the cops fault in this when the dog clearly takes a lounge at him to bite. If he didnt fire and the dog did bite him severly everyones opinions would be different.

 

 

maybe if the fucking cops knew what civil liberties were they wouldn't have overstepped (once again) the laws by which they are bound (what a joke, laws.. cops) and once again arrest people and shoot animals just because they feel like it.

 

you want to curse? here, right back at you. stupid people with no concept for what this country is built on disgust me. rip usa

A tazer or CS spray isn't going to do much to a pissed off attack dog.

 

Not sure why or how you'd spray a fish, but hey-ho.

 

Edit: Also, may I remind you not to use any form of meme posts. You wanted a civil discussion by making a topic on the video and now you've got one, So stick to it please.

Edited July 3, 201312 yr by sgtdonuts

A dog isn't worth officer injury or death. And weapons like tasers are called "less lethal" for a reason. They can still kill humans, nevermind dogs, with or without a pre-existing condition. It's 50,000 volts of electricity going through you if it hits the target. The best way to avoid dog attacks is for people to raise their dog properly so it doesn't get amped up when interacting with other people. Most people who own rotweilers or pit bulls that attack people are generally lazy owners. Dogs like that are very high maintenance and high energy and need to be tired out every day or they get wound up. Owners also encourage a lot of bad behaviors that make the dogs think they own the house they live in, or the car they ride in or whatever. Taking a page out of Cesar Milan's book; they are not portraying themselves as a pack leader, and therefore there can be some serious repercussions.

I was not a fanatic about my dog. The best breed to own for people like me, I'm convinced, is a hound of some kind. Beagles, Basset Hounds, etc match the lifestyle of the owner. If you're active, they're active. If you're lazy, they're lazy. It's a great breed of dog to own. I had a beagle for 8 years and I loved it.

'>

'>

 

because we have ANOTHER expert on taser, deadly and nonlethal force here.

 

tell me again how tasers are ineffective? how many do you own? have you been tased? have you see animals being tased? TV shows don't count.

 

you are welcome

 

this is the same department that tried to shoot 2 women earlier this year because they figured they might be a big black man by the name of dorner.  yep

 

so apparently cops in other parts of the country can deal with dogs just fine, but the lapd is so well trained they just shoot anything they feel like. anybody who defends that crap should one day find themselves at the wrong end of the barrel, because without public pressure, they will gladly do it daily.

maybe if the fucking cops knew what civil liberties were they wouldn't have overstepped (once again) the laws by which they are bound (what a joke, laws.. cops) and once again arrest people and shoot animals just because they feel like it.

 

you want to curse? here, right back at you. stupid people with no concept for what this country is built on disgust me. rip usa

'>

'>

 

because we have ANOTHER expert on taser, deadly and nonlethal force here.

 

tell me again how tasers are ineffective? how many do you own? have you been tased? have you see animals being tased? TV shows don't count.

 

you are welcome

 

this is the same department that tried to shoot 2 women earlier this year because they figured they might be a big black man by the name of dorner.  yep

 

so apparently cops in other parts of the country can deal with dogs just fine, but the lapd is so well trained they just shoot anything they feel like. anybody who defends that crap should one day find themselves at the wrong end of the barrel, because without public pressure, they will gladly do it daily.

all im going to say is that the dog was barking in the car before it even got out, any cop with common sense (there were three there and one suspect by the end surely one of them isnt doing much) would have seen the dog in the car with an open window and barking , and prepared himself in whatever way he felt was justified to protect all three of them just in case the dog got out of the car and came to protect his owner

 

that is just my personal opinion and also please remember that we are all speaking in hindsight and we do not know what we would have done in the split second of the moment so tbh all of our points are invalid as we were not there, do not know what the cop had been through in the hours before the incident, and yeah... 

 

Cops are Humans and have emotions/feelings too...  many people forget that sometimes, it might have been haunting that cop that he killed that dog, he may be a dog lover himself and felt he had to do what he had to do at the time, we dont know and it is not for us to judge

 

 

How come any action the police takes his to lead to a giant discussion like this? The police is equipped for a reason. A taser or spray won't do anything to a dog since they will do anything to protect their owner. A gun is to protect the officer himself from life or near threatening injuries. A dog can cause mayor injuries. So if the gun is the only option, use it. You can not make the officer suffer because the silly dog wants to protect its owner. For those who are defending the dog: Each story has two sides. Keep that in mind.

 

I say, leave it if you don't know the rights/procedures of the police. And don't come with wannabe-knowledge, as I know most people think they know everything when it comes to police. The officers did well.

The man was blasting loud and distracting music while getting a little too close to the officers who were making an arrest. There's a reason why he was charged with Interference of a police officer.
 
California Penal Code Section 148 A: "Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or any emergency medical technician as defined in Division 2.5 of the Heath and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when  no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. 
 
The arrest was justified as he indeed, delay and obstruct a public/peace officer. Refering to the latter information I'm assuming that the "arrest" was justified. Before his arrest he came up to the officers and asked "Why there were no black officers on scene?". That statement was unneeded and uncalled for. He's just a man nitpicking every little detail of what he thinks is "wrong" about the department just to support lawsuit he planned against the Hawthorne Police Department. He was clearly asking to get arrested with his actions and music, and he got it. 
 
To all the users on this topic posting how the dog was "just a adorable, cute, loving, dog", it was an 80 pound ROTTWEILER. These dogs are VERY aggressive when their master is attacked, and can cause SERIOUS damage. A tazer would simply aggravate even more and possible endanger the officers even further. A dog with 80 pounds of PURE MUSCLE can very well withstand a tazer, assuming the ONE shot actually makes contact. This is not LCPDFR, you can't reload a tazer in one second. Both prongs of the actual projectile have to make contact with the skin of your target. Considering these circumstances, using a tazer in this instance could be risky.

 

As previously stated in my previous post, the dog would have died anyways if he had been tazed or shot. The officer could have: 1. Shot the dog and saving the county money, or 2. Tazing the dog, transfer/housing/feeding it at an animal control facility, and then have a court order for it to be put down for rabies testing. Either way, the dog was going to die. For what it's worth, the dog owner was stupid for conducting his actions, he knowingly knew the consequences. Should have left the dog at home.
 

---

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/148.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/police-shoot-dog_n_3530990.html

http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/Caught-on-video-Police-shoot-kill-dog-during-arrest-214018171.html

http://newsone.com/2625509/leon-rosby-california-police-shoot-dog/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/graphic-video-police-shoot-dog-article-1.1387861

Edited July 3, 201312 yr by wmai20

I feel the officer was justified in shooting. The dog clearly lunged, as previously stated. Unfortunately, it had to be done. Interestingly enough, the Brimfield, Ohio police chief shared his opinion and also shed a little light on additional circumstances that may have caused the arrest, this is the post that was made.

"Chief’s Babble…..on the Rottweiler.

I have received lots of messages and emails about the shooting of a Rottweiler by a police officer. Some of you are very passionate for both sides of this argument. I understand both sides and would like to offer some opinion on the incident…as usual. Let’s look at the incident....

• According to the LA Times, The police department was out in force after responding to armed-robbery suspects who had barricaded themselves in a home. The situation could have been deadly and officers needed to secure a perimeter. 

•The subject with the dog has a history with that particular department, including being arrested for drugs and domestic violence and also has a current lawsuit against the department.

•Many people in the background could be heard asking what the subject and his dog were doing “so close” to police cars and the operations going on at the residence.

•The subject appears to exchange words with officers, puts his dog in the vehicle with windows down….and then walks up to be handcuffed by officers…as if he wanted to be arrested…perhaps to use as a “retaliation” charge against the department for the ongoing lawsuit. That is an opinion....from experience.

•The Rottweiler jumps from the vehicle, walks towards the officers and subject and then lunges at an officer. The officers shoots and kills the dog.

Most of you know I love dogs. I have had several dogs in my lifetime, including a very nice Rottweiler. I did not like watching this incident, at all. There are places I will not take my dogs, out of just plain old common sense….One of those places would most definitely be to a barricaded subjects call. I would also not show up to a scene involving a police department I was in an active lawsuit with and begin cajoling officers….particularly with my dog in tow. Yes, I know we honor free speech in America; however, rights come with responsibilities. 

The incident transpired in less than ten seconds. The officers made a snap decision and will be judged on that decision for some time to come. That’s what this profession is. Also...the officers should have known who they were dealing with and expected this type of behavior. Preparation wins every time. 

After watching this and reading many sides of the story, I have to fault of the owner of the dog for most of this drama. Dog ownership is a responsibility, not a status. Would the owner have taken his two-year-old child that close to danger? Dogs are loyal and that is evident by this dog’s response to his owner being arrested. For that loyalty, we owe our four legged friends the same in return. 

I know we have our dog lovers on board here. I am one also. Do not be blinded by emotion. Most if not all of you would NOT show up at an active and dangerous police scene, with your dog, to yell at police officers. Many of you watch from the safe and needed distance....and that is the norm. 

Many dogs have less than great best friends. Harsh... but very true.….Chief Oliver"

 

So the fact that the man had a lawsuit with the department may have been the reason he "surrendered" himself. Just another perspective.

It's because pitbulls have extremely thick skulls. Like I said, 2/3 cops were busy detaining the owner. There was only one cop left to cover the otherwise occupied cops, so the only option would be a gun. A tazer sounds good, but it isn't guaranteed to do anything. For it to be effective, both prongs must hit, and if it misses it takes a while to reload. A dog is a small, fast moving target making hitting one more difficult. The only option to defend the other two cops was a gun, regardless of how politically incorrect it is.

 

True, but it seems like three 9mm rounds to the skull would've at least caused fracturing that incapacitated the animal. The suspect was already cuffed, given the right technique it's perfectly possible for one cop to hold the guy back. I would say that the third cop was definitely concerned for the group as he pushes in between the suspect and his dog which also implies he doesn't know it was the suspect's dog. When the dog ran close to the officers, it was at a very close range and parallel to the officer with a taser, making it a fairly easy shot to make. If that failed and the dog was still aggressive, the third officer should employ the firearm. Again, I don't think this was politically incorrect or unjustified. The officer did what he had to do to ensure his safety. However, the whole scenario would have gone better had the officer not attempted to grab the dog.

 

Edit: Reading my posts again gives the impression that I would want a cop to use a taser on ANY attacking dog. This isn't true. If a dog were attacking an officer in the context of the videos that have been posted, a firearm would be the only reliable way to stop it. If the dog were simply running close to the officers as its owner was being detained, a taser (along with the third officer's firearm) should have been drawn in preparation. The dog wasn't attacking the officer until he tried to grab the leash. Rule #1 of dealing with unknown dogs is don't stick your hand near their face.

Edited July 3, 201312 yr by JazzBlackBelt

True, but it seems like three 9mm rounds to the skull would've at least caused fracturing that incapacitated the animal. The suspect was already cuffed, given the right technique it's perfectly possible for one cop to hold the guy back. I would say that the third cop was definitely concerned for the group as he pushes in between the suspect and his dog which also implies he doesn't know it was the suspect's dog. When the dog ran close to the officers, it was at a very close range and parallel to the officer with a taser, making it a fairly easy shot to make. If that failed and the dog was still aggressive, the third officer should employ the firearm. Again, I don't think this was politically incorrect or unjustified. The officer did what he had to do to ensure his safety. However, the whole scenario would have gone better had the officer not attempted to grab the dog.

 

Edit: Reading my posts again gives the impression that I would want a cop to use a taser on ANY attacking dog. This isn't true. If a dog were attacking an officer in the context of the videos that have been posted, a firearm would be the only reliable way to stop it. If the dog were simply running close to the officers as its owner was being detained, a taser (along with the third officer's firearm) should have been drawn in preparation. The dog wasn't attacking the officer until he tried to grab the leash. Rule #1 of dealing with unknown dogs is don't stick your hand near their face.

 

But the problem is that the only way to attempt to control the situation without shooting the dog was to try to grab the leash. Animal control would've been 30 minutes away, and that's ignoring the fact they wouldn't be allowed to get close due to the SWAT standoff going on in the background. The dog already showed a tendency to lunge, and the police restrained themselves during the first lunges.

Unfurtunally

The humans hold and abuse the 'domestic' animals, looks like dogs,cats etc

These animals must have a natural life in your respective habitat (florest....)

 

Congrats for this cop,-1 dog in the world.