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.

 

+1

The police did try to grab the leash.

This all discussion just because the cop shoot the dog? What I wonder is why they handcuffed the god owner before the dog attacked, couldn't they just ask him to leave the scene and turn off the music of the car? (I've read he had the volume too high and it was disturbing)

Edited July 3, 201312 yr by strike

This all discussion just because the cop shoot the dog? What I wonder is why they handcuffed the god owner before the dog attacked, couldn't they just ask him to leave the scene and turn off the music of the car? (I've read he had the volume too high and it was disturbing)

 

In the video you can clearly see he's been lingering around the area for a while now. He's holding a phone or camera, recording the officers on scene while holding his dog, and blasting music from his car. He apparently was planning to file a lawsuit against that department for some reason. I guess he was warned some time before the incident and continued to ignore the officers' warnings. If someone's refusing to leave a scene where they've been asked to leave, they can be arrested for obstruction according to California Penal Code.

Edited July 3, 201312 yr by wmai20

The issue with these situations is that people will always see what they want to see, people will either say that the cops are asshole cops or they did what they had to do. It's personal opinion unless you're a trained law enforcement officer, any other debate is an exchange of opinion.

 

One side is calling the cops in this case asshole cops for arresting this black guy for no reason, then they shot his dog because they felt like.

Another side is arguing that the guy provoked the cops, they arrested or detained him, the dog appeared to attack officers so the cops acted accordingly.

 

Those two will never reach agreement which to me at least renders these dicussions useless as you aren't approaching it with the mentality of exchanging opinions, it is not worth discussing something with someone who is only interested in proving themselves right or proving you wrong.

Okay, the dog lunges, but what do you expect aiming a gun at a pitbull, idiots. What's worse is the fact they shot it and just watches it scramble around the place screaming in agony, at least be humane and put it out of pain, not just watch it. 

 

Some are saying he shot it because that's what he's trained to do, I recon he shot out of fear, not thinking. There were other, far better ways around this. 

 

 

Okay, the dog lunges, but what do you expect aiming a gun at a pitbull, idiots. What's worse is the fact they shot it and just watches it scramble around the place screaming in agony, at least be humane and put it out of pain, not just watch it. 

 

Some are saying he shot it because that's what he's trained to do, I recon he shot out of fear, not thinking. There were other, far better ways around this. 

 

Yes, the dog lunges. What do you expect someone with a gun to do, hug it? Had the cops put the dog out of its misery, one side would be screaming bloody murder about the cops executing. At least it had chance to live this way.

 

And please explain those other options. We've been over in this thread several times that the only effective way is to shoot it.

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.

 

That dog did not "get amped up when interacting with other people," it was defending its owner. If it couldn't handle being around people then it would have been going nuts the entire time it was outside. As the family member of someone who has owned multiple Rotties, I would know that they tend to be protective. Even the best trained Rottweiler will attack someone who is threatening its owner.

Edited July 4, 201312 yr by willpv23

I see people saying you could have tased them there have been over 500 taser related death in the united states that is on a human think about that on a dog. A dog that is the kid and has a smaller heart (About half of a human heart) most likely the dog would have died from being tased too. The shooting is justified, look at a force matrix '> SERIOUS bodily harm a dog leaching at your face that could bite your face it could attack you so bad that you end up dying later at the hospital or even on the ambulance. Death/Serious Bodily Harm is considered Lethal Force. So in the end it was justified to me.

Okay, the dog lunges, but what do you expect aiming a gun at a pitbull, idiots. What's worse is the fact they shot it and just watches it scramble around the place screaming in agony, at least be humane and put it out of pain, not just watch it. 

 

Some are saying he shot it because that's what he's trained to do, I recon he shot out of fear, not thinking. There were other, far better ways around this. 

 

So, the dog recognized the gun and attacked? And its a level of force problem. If the cop feels that his life, or the life of another, is being threatened, that cop is justified in using lethal force. But it is hard to watch. Obviously the dog was just trying to protect its owner. There is no clear cut moral answer here. I'm sure the cops weren't out to murder a dog that day, and that dog was doing what it felt it had to do. A bunch of people bickering on a forum are not going to change what happened, all thats going to happen is that there will be misdirected anger everywhere. But, the internet being what it is, unleash the misdirected anger.

Edited July 4, 201312 yr by SpeedyRetreat

That dog did not "get amped up when interacting with other people," it was defending its owner. If it couldn't handle being around people then it would have been going nuts the entire time it was outside. As the family member of someone who has owned multiple Rotties, I would know that they tend to be protective. Even the best trained Rottweiler will attack someone who is threatening its owner.

A dog's attitude is not a trait that comes from genetics, it comes from owner training. A puppy knows nothing at birth and needs to learn, just like a human does. Nobody's saying a dog doesn't have the right to defend it's master, but there's a right way and a wrong way to breed a dog for that purpose.

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.

A dog's attitude is not a trait that comes from genetics, it comes from owner training. A puppy knows nothing at birth and needs to learn, just like a human does. Nobody's saying a dog doesn't have the right to defend it's master, but there's a right way and a wrong way to breed a dog for that purpose.

 

"It has an inherent desire to protect home and family"

"A 2008 study surveying breed club members found that while Rottweilers were average in aggressiveness (bites or bite attempts) towards owners and other dogs, it indicated they tend to be more aggressive than average towards strangers. This aggression appears correlated with watchdog and territorial instincts."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rottweiler

 

"Inherent" and "instincts" are things that are natural, not taught. Yes the dog could have been trained to never defend or anything with extreme obedience training but then it isn't a Rottweiler anymore. Obviously he shouldn't have had the dog out there with him, but it doesn't appear that the dog is poorly trained.

Edited July 4, 201312 yr by willpv23

Wikipedia isn't necessarily the best source for information. If you believe in the science of genetics (hopefully most of us here do), you will most likely buy into the reason Rottweilers are what they are physically. They were dogs bred for fighting in the German town of Rotweil. They are very large and muscular and have an incredible amount of energy. They are common pets but are generally hard to control due to genetic reasons, chiefly the amount of energy the dog needs to expend before it gets tired for the day (otherwise it remains wound up, looking for a way to expend that energy) coupled with the owners laziness or ignorance of how to raise this type of dog. Any "vicious" breed like Rotweilers, Dobermans, German Shepherds, Pit Bulls, etc have bad reputations as mean dogs just because that's the way they were born. Dog trainers don't buy into that, and I don't either. All dogs have a little "wild" in them since they're descendants of the wolf, but a properly trained dog won't attack people at random. Most pet owners are lazy. Breeds like the ones mentioned above, hell, even breeds with less sinister reputations take the same kind of attentiveness that most people don't give. Collies and Dalmatians would be other good examples. They're high maintenance dogs, and for people with active lifestyles who want to be involved with an animal on that level, they're great pets. But under the wrong owner, the dog can resort to bad behavior because it doesn't know any better. Simply writing it off as "that's the way it is" doesn't fly with me, as qualified dog trainers and dedicated owners have both proven otherwise.

Something like this happened in my county about two weeks ago. I hate to see an officer scrutinized for protecting himself :P

Wikipedia isn't necessarily the best source for information. If you believe in the science of genetics (hopefully most of us here do), you will most likely buy into the reason Rottweilers are what they are physically. They were dogs bred for fighting in the German town of Rotweil. They are very large and muscular and have an incredible amount of energy. They are common pets but are generally hard to control due to genetic reasons, chiefly the amount of energy the dog needs to expend before it gets tired for the day (otherwise it remains wound up, looking for a way to expend that energy) coupled with the owners laziness or ignorance of how to raise this type of dog. Any "vicious" breed like Rotweilers, Dobermans, German Shepherds, Pit Bulls, etc have bad reputations as mean dogs just because that's the way they were born. Dog trainers don't buy into that, and I don't either. All dogs have a little "wild" in them since they're descendants of the wolf, but a properly trained dog won't attack people at random. Most pet owners are lazy. Breeds like the ones mentioned above, hell, even breeds with less sinister reputations take the same kind of attentiveness that most people don't give. Collies and Dalmatians would be other good examples. They're high maintenance dogs, and for people with active lifestyles who want to be involved with an animal on that level, they're great pets. But under the wrong owner, the dog can resort to bad behavior because it doesn't know any better. Simply writing it off as "that's the way it is" doesn't fly with me, as qualified dog trainers and dedicated owners have both proven otherwise.

 

Wikipedia is a good source for information if you check the sources. The sources for the information I quoted are this and this. The first one is the American Kennel Club and the second is a scientific journal, both reliable. This attack wasn't at random. If those officers did not detain the owner then the dog would not have attacked them. If you really believe that a dog should be trained to know the difference between someone putting its owner in danger and its owner being arrested then you do that. I know I won't since it seems quite pointless. Have those "qualified dog trainers and dedicated owners" been able to train a dog to defend when its owner needs defense and to stay away when he's being arrested? The dog didn't listen to its owner when he told it to back off, but it was already in defense mode and once you get a dog worked up, it can be difficult to calm them down. Especially while handcuffed. If I was living in that area I would want my Rotty to still protect me, so I wouldn't train it to just ignore everyone.

Edited July 5, 201312 yr by willpv23

I'm sorry that we'll have to agree to disagree, willpv23. Dogs can be trained to know the difference between aggressive movements and normal movements. This is crucial when dealing with a big dog that's going to live with children, as their movement will be random and erratic. Again coming back to Cesar Milan, he's had to do this with big dogs that live with families that are having their first kids. That kennel club article is trying to paint the ideal picture of what a Rottweiler should be when being judged. And that 2nd link looks like a thesis paper since it has a ton of references within the article itself, plus multiple authors.

But I digress; the dog didn't need to do what it did, and proper training could have prevented it. it looks like you even started to hint at that yourself in your reply, saying that it's hard to clam them down. And it is. But ultimately the person that raises the dog builds and shapes its brain, in the same way our parents raise us to behave a certain way and respond to certain commands. And that's the bottom line the way I see it. I think the owner is going to need to chalk this up to lessons learned. In particular 1.) How to avoid being arrested. 2.) Be more meticulous in raising your animal, or pick a breed that fits you better.

Edited July 5, 201312 yr by unr3al

Well I definitely agree that the dog could have been trained to not attack. If it's heavily trained by someone who trains K-9 unit dogs or something. It's not easy to train something out of its nature. It's like how a mother will protect her children; it's just nature. And if you get a Rottweiler, you usually don't want it to be passive like that when you're in a situation where you could be harmed. I wouldn't consider being detained a "normal moment." In the eyes of a dog (who also was just put away in the car) watching the police touch and move its owner, it could appear to be agressive. Really, any breed of dog would have done the same thing. It's just in a dog's nature (which I can't tell if you agree with or not since you seem to bounce between saying dogs aren't born being protective and need to be trained to do that to that dogs need to be trained out of being protective). A dog will protect its owner. Yes, they can be trained to only act in the right situation. It's the difference between just a casual conversation and a threatening one. I'm sure that dog realized that the police were not there to just talk politely to the guy. It appeared to the dog that the situation was a threatening one.

 

Edit: But as you said, we will have to agree to disagree. And, yeah, the guy does need to learn how not to get arrested.

Edited July 5, 201312 yr by willpv23

Not one to beat a dead horse, but this video has surfaced.

 

The officers ask the owner to leave multiple times but he refuses and says "I can stand here if I want". I didn't catch the rest of the video because I'm too tired but this justifies the shooting of the dog and the fault being placed on the owner's actions

 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=256_1373408203

Not one to beat a dead horse, but this video has surfaced.

 

The officers ask the owner to leave multiple times but he refuses and says "I can stand here if I want". I didn't catch the rest of the video because I'm too tired but this justifies the shooting of the dog and the fault being placed on the owner's actions

 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=256_1373408203

 

Here's a longer video I previously posted in which he was asked to turn down the music and illegally parked at first, then drove to the corner to continue to harass them. I have no idea why they didn't show this video besides editing the officers' faces out, since it shows Rosby as intentionally placing himself in that situation.

 

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