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

[DragonGunner]

Watched all this on news last night, the guy was a jackwagon, was looking for attention and trying to start something, did everything he could to make this happen including when he put his dog in the car he didn't put the windows up......gee how did he get out?


Oh, and you all know me...I would of shot that dog too.....sucker lunged and looks like cop shot right down its open mouth or his gun and hand would of been in there. No...lets wait till he bites the hell out of us first then see if we should shoot....LOL.

 

[buzzined]

Just because it is a rottweiller does not mean that it is dangerous. rottweillers are "known to be dangerous" because they are big and strong and make good guard dogs. They are also some of the frendliest dogs you will ever be around. They just want to protect their owners. That is just like saying that pittbulls are killers.

Anyway, It seems like the guy was asking for trouble. whether he should have been arrested or not, he probably shouldnt have been in that situation to begin with. However, the dog should not have been shot, for alot of reasons. First of all, the dog didnt even act that agressive as he was approaching the officers. With a few extra minutes of staying calm around the dog, they probably would have been petting it instead of cleaning it up off the sidewalk. Secondly, the guy they cuffed showed no hostility, and even offered his hand behind his back to them. They could have uncuffed him and had him put the dog back in the car and secure it. Three, the last thing you want to do in a residential neighborhood is to pull out your gun and fire on a target unless it is absolutely the last resort. Its hard telling where some of those rounds ended up. There were so many other options. Its sad that the officers first reaction was to start shooting. So regardelss of whether the guy should have been arrested, this officer should be seriously punished for his actions. He killed a dog when he didnt need to, and he could have hurt or killed other innocent bystanders in the process.

(oh and by the way, i forgot to mention that there could have been small children around that dont need to see stuff like that. the poor dog suffered and bled all over the road and sidewalk for a good while.


rant off

+1
I totally agree

 

[phylodog]

Just because it is a rottweiller does not mean that it is dangerous. rottweillers are "known to be dangerous" because they are big and strong and make good guard dogs. They are also some of the frendliest dogs you will ever be around. They just want to protect their owners. That is just like saying that pittbulls are killers.

Couldn't agree more. That harmless puppy looked like he just wanted to lick the officer's face

Anyway, It seems like the guy was asking for trouble. whether he should have been arrested or not, he probably shouldnt have been in that situation to begin with. However, the dog should not have been shot, for alot of reasons. First of all, the dog didnt even act that agressive as he was approaching the officers. With a few extra minutes of staying calm around the dog, they probably would have been petting it instead of cleaning it up off the sidewalk. Secondly, the guy they cuffed showed no hostility, and even offered his hand behind his back to them. They could have uncuffed him and had him put the dog back in the car and secure it. Three, the last thing you want to do in a residential neighborhood is to pull out your gun and fire on a target unless it is absolutely the last resort. Its hard telling where some of those rounds ended up. There were so many other options. Its sad that the officers first reaction was to start shooting. So regardelss of whether the guy should have been arrested, this officer should be seriously punished for his actions. He killed a dog when he didnt need to, and he could have hurt or killed other innocent bystanders in the process.

1-I've seen dogs bite with zero warning. They don't always project their intentions through posturing. I might agree with you if the officers had started shooting the second the dog's paws hit the ground. They didn't; they waited until the dog aggressively lunged at the officer.

2- How quickly do you think one can remove a pair of handcuffs? They don't exactly pop off in half a second. On top of that, many agencies have a policy which prohibits removing handcuffs from someone under arrest until they are within a secure facility.

3- Getting a gun out and shooting it in an urban area is always dangerous. Unfortunately when police officers do it they rarely have a choice. I guess the officer should have just let the dog clamp down on his leg, drug him into an alley and then shot him.

(oh and by the way, i forgot to mention that there could have been small children around that dont need to see stuff like that. the poor dog suffered and bled all over the road and sidewalk for a good while.


rant off

I wouldn't want my small children watching a dog maul a person either.

Has there been any information provided to show that there were any errant shots here? Did the officer hit anything he wasn't supposed to?

At least you're reasonable and realistic in your expectations

 

[Que]

In this situation, the officer was right to shoot the dog; HOWEVER, the officers were WRONG for even getting into the situation in the first place. I'm sick of hearing "he was looking for trouble" every time an officer if caught on tape acting as if the law doesn't apply to him. Do I like citizens who get their rifles and go for a walk just to get the attention of the police? No, but that is my personal feeling about it. What law was broken? Did he threaten the officers in any way? If no law is being broken why can't the police just ignore him?

In this case, there APPEARS to be a history between the man and the PD. Can anyone tell us, definitively, that the man is off his rocker and all of his past activities have been the result of a deep hatred for the police? If you can't do that, why do the officers automatically get the benefit of the doubt?

 

[phylodog]

If you can't do that, why do the officers automatically get the benefit of the doubt?

From watching the video. I can't understand why anyone would fault the officers for making contact with this guy when he so obviously wanted it and was making every effort to distract them from what they needed to be doing. The officers felt that he was interfering with their investigation. You can disagree with that assessment all you like. The bottom line is that a judge will make the final determination and if they did not have the required probable cause to make that arrest then this guy will have grounds for a lawsuit for false arrest and perhaps for denying him of his property.

I have to wonder what some folks opinion of this would have been had the dog stayed in the car.

 

[Destro]

I wouldn't want my small children watching a dog maul a person either.

Has there been any information provided to show that there were any errant shots here? Did the officer hit anything he wasn't supposed to?

At least you're reasonable and realistic in your expectations

so many "other options" like a Taser (that the officer may/may not even carry, and offers 1 shot)? OC that takes considerably longer to draw?

Un cuffing an arrestee so he can return a dog to his vehicle is unrealistic

 

[Destro]

What law was broken? Did he threaten the officers in any way? If no law is being broken why can't the police just ignore him?

He was intentionally causing a disruption at an active crime scene/standoff. When the officers asked him to discontinue his disruption, he refused and was arrested for obstruction of justice accordingly.

 

[Rob377]

Awesome. Being mildly annoying to a cop is now an arrest able offense.

FTP.

 

[Que]

From watching the video. I can't understand why anyone would fault the officers for making contact with this guy when he so obviously wanted it and was making every effort to distract them from what they needed to be doing. The officers felt that he was interfering with their investigation. You can disagree with that assessment all you like. The bottom line is that a judge will make the final determination and if they did not have the required probable cause to make that arrest then this guy will have grounds for a lawsuit for false arrest and perhaps for denying him of his property.

I have to wonder what some folks opinion of this would have been had the dog stayed in the car.

I certainly disagree. Everyone is free to have an opinion. You know the part I've bolded is NOT going to happen, just as well as I do. He was not denied access to his property and probable cause can be anything those officers make up. As for false arrest, I'm not even sure they arrested him. They probably let him go shortly before they left.

I believe if the dog had stayed in the car, they would have cuffed him and released him, just as I believe they did anyway. Honestly, if the dog had stayed in the car and the officers had not shot him, I would probably have still seen the wrong in the actions of the man and the officers. But, sometimes we see things that just go too far and even though I am a fan of the LEO community, every officer is not right 100% of the time and i won't act like they are.

 

[phylodog]

Hopefully you've seen me chime in against those in my profession who have done wrong. I am not an apologist but I certainly have a different perspective then most who have not worked in the field. Creating a disturbance in that situation is more than mildly annoying, it could have serious consequences should something unexpected happen and the officers aren't prepared for it.

 

[Que]

He was intentionally causing a disruption at an active crime scene/standoff. When the officers asked him to discontinue his disruption, he refused and was arrested for obstruction of justice accordingly.

At :30 the officers entered the house. At :42 some officers crossed the street and took a position. Bottom line, the officers moved toward the man simply because he pissed them off. The question would be, was he really interfering with the officers carrying out their duty. I'm sure they will say he did, but if that were the case, it seems they would have dealt with him much quicker than they did.

This guy was jailed for recording police stops and he continued to be an annoyance.

 

[Destro]

They probably let him go shortly before they left.

.

He was arrested and jailed

 

[Destro]

At :30 the officers entered the house. At :42 some officers crossed the street and took a position. Bottom line, the officers moved toward the man simply because he pissed them off. The question would be, was he really interfering with the officers carrying out their duty. I'm sure they will say he did, but if that were the case, it seems they would have dealt with him much quicker than they did.

This guy was jailed for recording police stops and he continued to be an annoyance.

His interference was excessively loud music. He was asked to turn his music down and declined. The suspect himself admitted his music was probably too loud.

Many others were videotaping and no police action was taken.

 

[Que]

Hopefully you've seen me chime in against those in my profession who have done wrong. I am not an apologist but I certainly have a different perspective then most who have not worked in the field. Creating a disturbance in that situation is more than mildly annoying, it could have serious consequences should something unexpected happen and the officers aren't prepared for it.

I certainly have and I'm not saying you don't. We just disagree concerning this one.

I have no idea how the PD trains, but I'm sure they are taught to expect the unexpected. Besides, would you leave whatever they were dealing with in order to give attention to someone simply looking for attention? What about the officers that were in that house? What happens if they needed help? I don't have all the answers, but I just see this a bit different from some.

 

[Destro]

This guy was jailed for recording police stops and he continued to be an annoyance.

you are aware this was a swat standoff with barricaded suspects, and they were trying to use loud speakers to call him out (enter the loud music)...not a busted tail light.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Move to CA? Apply to Hawthorne PD? seems you would be an asset

Just maybe

FIFY

Cannot say what I want to say to you here

 

[Destro]

I certainly have and I'm not saying you don't. We just disagree concerning this one.

I have no idea how the PD trains, but I'm sure they are taught to expect the unexpected. Besides, would you leave whatever they were dealing with in order to give attention to someone simply looking for attention? What about the officers that were in that house? What happens if they needed help? I don't have all the answers, but I just see this a bit different from some.

some reports have eluded to the officers taking action after the situation was somewhat resolved

 

[Que]

you are aware this was a swat standoff with barricaded suspects, and they were trying to use loud speakers to call him out (enter the loud music)...not a busted tail light.

some reports have eluded to the officers taking action after the situation was somewhat resolved

So, the officers arrested him because his music COULD HAVE interfered with them resolving the matter? If the situation was resolved, why did it matter that his music was loud? Did the music prevent them from getting it resolved sooner? If the music was disturbing them, why didn't they take action sooner?

 

[Destro]

So, the officers arrested him because his music COULD HAVE interfered with them resolving the matter? If the situation was resolved, why did it matter that his music was loud? Did the music prevent them from getting it resolved sooner? If the music was disturbing them, why didn't they take action sooner?

answers most likely found in the officers narrative

 

[mrjarrell]

Since absolutely nothing is ever to likely to be done to the dog killer, Anonymous has stepped up.

Group ‘Anonymous’ Targets Hawthorne Police Department For Fatally Shooting Dog « CBS Los Angeles