Video like this is one of the ways we keep those we've vested with power accountable for their actions.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.
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>.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.
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!
And WTF is up with the mp5s?!?
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.
Trayvon Martin scenario... Justified shoot, but the shooter created the scenario for no better reason than authority went to his head.
Good shoot, bad collar, which reflexively makes it a bad shoot as well.
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.
The shooter was LE... no the individual wasn't doing anything more than taking a stroll with his dog.
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.
D'oh! She went there!So what you're saying is that some animals are more equal others?
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?