Hawthorne Police Dept shoot dog while apprehending owner that was filming riot

[Don]

I'm shocked no one is *****in about the cops having mp5s.

 

[88GT]

The dog was attacking the cops. This is why you don't taunt the police, or even talk to the police in a situation like that. Nothing good will come of it. I see dummies with their cell phone out taking videos of what!? Nothing. Idiots. Get in your damn houses if their a riot you tards.

Video like this is one of the ways we keep those we've vested with power accountable for their actions.

It could have been avoided if the officers would have simply stayed down the block where they were. What law did the man break? Yeah, the shooting was justified because the dog posed a danger, but in this case it SEEMS the officers just wanted to exercise their authority and shut the mouth of a person whose comments they did not appreciate.

Well, we know they can't handle being lied to. Doesn't seem like much of a stretch to believe they wouldn't appreciate a direct assault on their authority in the form of <pick the legal activity of your choice>.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. If the guy had just got in his car and left. If only he had secured the dog inside the car. He obviously knew something was up. He should have been allowed to make sure the animal was contained before they took him into custody or detained him. I feel bad for the dog, not for the guy. Stupid!

Why should he have to leave?


---------
And WTF is up with the mp5s?!?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

And WTF is up with the mp5s?!?

It's California. Shoot first, ask later. If we learned anything from the Dorner situation, it's that.

 

[Twangbanger]

The real issue here seems to be the apparent arrest of the man. If that's in fact what it is, then it looks like a bad arrest to me. He clearly seemed to be in a place where it was legal for him to be, and I cannot see anything in the demeanor of the officers standing passively down the street to indicate they were taking any action whatsoever to get him to leave or stop filming. By the time they begin to approach, the filming had stopped. I can't tell if they asked him to approach them or present his hands for cuffing, but if this is in fact an arrest, it doesn't appear legit.


The dog is an unfortunate by-product of the circumstances, but it's the arrest, if it was one, that's the issue here.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Good shoot, bad collar, which reflexively makes it a bad shoot as well.

 

[lucky4034]

Trayvon Martin scenario... Justified shoot, but the shooter created the scenario for no better reason than authority went to his head.

I will note that even with the dog loose the officers could have tried to de-escalate the situation by allowing the owner to re-secure the dog. There was no immediate threat and the guy wasn't/shouldn't have been restrained anyway.

The problem I have with this shoot is that there were many other ways it could have easily played out and the cops chose the most destructive.

 

[Trigger Time]

There are things going on in some Cali PDs that any decent officer would not agree with. Some people are upset and if the officers can't take hearing the opinions of the public, they should leave their job. Just because someone may want a confrontation, doesn't mean the officers had to oblige. They called him and if he had proceeded to enter his car and drive off, I'm sure things would have been even worse.

I agree with your statement. However in California unless your ready for a gun fight I wouldn't taunt the police. The people there have what they have earned. They are the ones who allowed the ones in power. Now If some of them wanna take back their state I fully support their right to do it. But how they can do it isn't for us to discuss here.
Because a lot of cops out there in the bigger cities will shoot first and ask questions later. I have family out there but I refuse to visit mostly because of the corrupt nazi police. And they are terrible. I'm more afrai of the cops out there than the gang bangers. How do you identify gangs in California? Red bandanas, blue bandanas, and badges.

 

[88GT]

Trayvon Martin scenario... Justified shoot, but the shooter created the scenario for no better reason than authority went to his head.

The shooter or LE?

Was what the individual doing sufficient to justify arrest?

 

[UnionPmedic]

Good shoot, bad collar, which reflexively makes it a bad shoot as well.

 

[lucky4034]

The shooter or LE?

Was what the individual doing sufficient to justify arrest?

The shooter was LE... no the individual wasn't doing anything more than taking a stroll with his dog.

 

[Trigger Time]

The shooter was LE... no the individual wasn't doing anything more than taking a stroll with his dog.

And taunting the police.

I don't understand why people shout stuff at police or try to agrivate them? 95% of the time it will not end well for you. Fight a battle you can win! Why don't people take some of this energy of taunting police and start taunting and pressing politicians to follow the damn law?

 

[actaeon277]

It looked like the dog didn't try to bite until the officer reached his hand OVER the head of the dog.

Reaching your hand OVER the head of an agitated dog is an AGGRESSIVE move.
The dog already witnessed them threatening "his" owner.
Then reaching over his head.
NEVER
NEVER
NEVER
NEVER reach over the head of a dog in an aggressive state.

Edit.
Yes the owner should have secured the dog better. But probably didn't know he was going into handcuffs.

 

[88GT]

The shooter was LE... no the individual wasn't doing anything more than taking a stroll with his dog.

You're right. For some reason I just processed that completely wrong. Wish I had the Bunnykid excuse, but sadly that was just pure unadulterated screw up. Anyway, question retracted.

 

[lucky4034]

Its cool... I'm tired too

 

[phylodog]

Can anyone hear what this "victim" was yelling at the police? What if he was threatening them with bodily harm? He wasn't simply walking his dog and the police seemed to take no interest in him when the two officers first walked across the street. Claiming he was arrested simply for filming is willful ignorace in an attempt to justify misplaced outrage.

IC 35-45-2-1 Version a
Intimidation
Note: This version of section amended by P.L.123-2013, SEC.3. See also following version of this section amended by P.L.158-2013, SEC.523, effective 7-1-2014.
Sec. 1. (a) A person who communicates a threat to another person, with the intent:
(1) that the other person engage in conduct against the other person's will;
(2) that the other person be placed in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act; or
(3) of:
(A) causing:
(i) a dwelling, building, or other structure; or
(ii) a vehicle;
to be evacuated; or
(B) interfering with the occupancy of:
(i) a dwelling, building, or other structure; or
(ii) a vehicle;
commits intimidation, a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) However, the offense is a:
(1) Class D felony if:
(A) the threat is to commit a forcible felony;
(B) the person to whom the threat is communicated:
(i) is a law enforcement officer;
(ii) is a witness (or the spouse or child of a witness) in any pending criminal proceeding against the person making the threat;
(iii) is an employee of a school or school corporation;
(iv) is a community policing volunteer;
(v) is an employee of a court;
(vi) is an employee of a probation department;
(vii) is an employee of a community corrections program;
(viii) is an employee of a hospital, church, or religious organization; or
(ix) is a person that owns a building or structure that is open to the public or is an employee of the person;
and, except as provided in item (ii), the threat is communicated to the person because of the occupation, profession, employment status, or ownership status of the person as described in items (i) through (ix) or based on an act taken by the person within the scope of the occupation,

profession, employment status, or ownership status of the person;
(C) the person has a prior unrelated conviction for an offense under this section concerning the same victim; or
(D) the threat is communicated using property, including electronic equipment or systems, of a school corporation or other governmental entity; and
(2) Class C felony if:
(A) while committing it, the person draws or uses a deadly weapon; or
(B) the person to whom the threat is communicated:
(i) is a judge or bailiff of any court; or
(ii) is a prosecuting attorney or a deputy prosecuting attorney.
(c) "Communicates" includes posting a message electronically, including on a social networking web site (as defined in IC 35-42-4-12(d)).
(d) "Threat" means an expression, by words or action, of an intention to:
(1) unlawfully injure the person threatened or another person, or damage property;
(2) unlawfully subject a person to physical confinement or restraint;
(3) commit a crime;
(4) unlawfully withhold official action, or cause such withholding;
(5) unlawfully withhold testimony or information with respect to another person's legal claim or defense, except for a reasonable claim for witness fees or expenses;
(6) expose the person threatened to hatred, contempt, disgrace, or ridicule;
(7) falsely harm the credit or business reputation of the person threatened; or
(8) cause the evacuation of a dwelling, a building, another structure, or a vehicle.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.5. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.71; Acts 1981, P.L.300, SEC.3; P.L.183-1984, SEC.6; P.L.325-1985, SEC.1; P.L.242-1993, SEC.3; P.L.164-1993, SEC.12; P.L.1-1994, SEC.169; P.L.241-2001, SEC.3; P.L.175-2003, SEC.3; P.L.3-2006, SEC.2; P.L.123-2013, SEC.3.

Obviously that is Indiana's Criminal Code for intimidation, it is possible CA has something similar and he was being placed under arrest for making threats to the officers.

I'd like to see the report to see what they charged him with.

 

[BigMatt]

Good shoot.

Lock up your dogs.

 

[88GT]

Can anyone hear what this "victim" was yelling at the police? What if he was threatening them with bodily harm? He wasn't simply walking his dog and the police seemed to take no interest in him when the two officers first walked across the street. Claiming he was arrested simply for filming is willful ignorace in an attempt to justify misplaced outrage.

IC 35-45-2-1 Version a
Intimidation
Note: This version of section amended by P.L.123-2013, SEC.3. See also following version of this section amended by P.L.158-2013, SEC.523, effective 7-1-2014.
Sec. 1. (a) A person who communicates a threat to another person, with the intent:
(1) that the other person engage in conduct against the other person's will;
(2) that the other person be placed in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act; or
(3) of:
(A) causing:
(i) a dwelling, building, or other structure; or
(ii) a vehicle;
to be evacuated; or
(B) interfering with the occupancy of:
(i) a dwelling, building, or other structure; or
(ii) a vehicle;
commits intimidation, a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) However, the offense is a:
(1) Class D felony if:
(A) the threat is to commit a forcible felony;
(B) the person to whom the threat is communicated:
(i) is a law enforcement officer;
(ii) is a witness (or the spouse or child of a witness) in any pending criminal proceeding against the person making the threat;
(iii) is an employee of a school or school corporation;
(iv) is a community policing volunteer;
(v) is an employee of a court;
(vi) is an employee of a probation department;
(vii) is an employee of a community corrections program;
(viii) is an employee of a hospital, church, or religious organization; or
(ix) is a person that owns a building or structure that is open to the public or is an employee of the person;
and, except as provided in item (ii), the threat is communicated to the person because of the occupation, profession, employment status, or ownership status of the person as described in items (i) through (ix) or based on an act taken by the person within the scope of the occupation,

profession, employment status, or ownership status of the person;
(C) the person has a prior unrelated conviction for an offense under this section concerning the same victim; or
(D) the threat is communicated using property, including electronic equipment or systems, of a school corporation or other governmental entity; and
(2) Class C felony if:
(A) while committing it, the person draws or uses a deadly weapon; or
(B) the person to whom the threat is communicated:
(i) is a judge or bailiff of any court; or
(ii) is a prosecuting attorney or a deputy prosecuting attorney.
(c) "Communicates" includes posting a message electronically, including on a social networking web site (as defined in IC 35-42-4-12(d)).
(d) "Threat" means an expression, by words or action, of an intention to:
(1) unlawfully injure the person threatened or another person, or damage property;
(2) unlawfully subject a person to physical confinement or restraint;
(3) commit a crime;
(4) unlawfully withhold official action, or cause such withholding;
(5) unlawfully withhold testimony or information with respect to another person's legal claim or defense, except for a reasonable claim for witness fees or expenses;
(6) expose the person threatened to hatred, contempt, disgrace, or ridicule;
(7) falsely harm the credit or business reputation of the person threatened; or
(8) cause the evacuation of a dwelling, a building, another structure, or a vehicle.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.5. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.71; Acts 1981, P.L.300, SEC.3; P.L.183-1984, SEC.6; P.L.325-1985, SEC.1; P.L.242-1993, SEC.3; P.L.164-1993, SEC.12; P.L.1-1994, SEC.169; P.L.241-2001, SEC.3; P.L.175-2003, SEC.3; P.L.3-2006, SEC.2; P.L.123-2013, SEC.3.

Obviously that is Indiana's Criminal Code for intimidation, it is possible CA has something similar and he was being placed under arrest for making threats to the officers.

I'd like to see the report to see what they charged him with.

So what you're saying is that some animals are more equal others?

 

[CathyInBlue]

So what you're saying is that some animals are more equal others?

D'oh! She went there!

Note that if "a person […] communicates a threat to another person, with the intent that the other person be placed in fear of retaliation for a prior UNlawful act", or "that the other person CEASE TO engage in conduct (presumably unlawful conduct) against the other person's will" they have not committed the tort of intimidation.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I'd like to see the report to see what they charged him with

California has a myriad of variants of Indiana's Intimidation statute, e.g. Terroristic Threats, inter alia.

I'll try to post them when I get back in town.

 

[phylodog]

So what you're saying is that some animals are more equal others?

I didn't write the law