# How Would Have Handled This? *graphic*



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

LA's finest were they right or wrong? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej-2FlWGWcU







Note: A dog is shot in this video


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

My opinion, Lynda. I'd like to see this video taken down because the people that need to see it and understand seeing what they need to, wont.

What they need to see is: People poke the bear until they get mauled. Then they wonder why. 

Without the totality of the circumstances in front of us, we can't determine what went on to any real end. The only people that will win here are the attorneys that make money off of defending or prosecuting. They rely on this type of thing to make a living where it's encouraged in our society, and we all pay for it. Right or wrong doesn't matter anymore, or real people could go to court on their own without attorneys and sort things out in front of a judge.

No one wins here. Cops, guy talking about civil rights violations, and certainly not the dog. 

This makes my guts hurt the way my fellow country men and women act. Not only the video, or the actions in the video, but talking about it like it's worthy of being repeated to anyone that wasn't there or isn't deciding the case.





Lynda Myers said:


> LA's finest were they right or wrong?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej-2FlWGWcU


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

And Lynda. I think we all do this to some extent. I think we'd all be better off if we didn't post or discuss such things. Not trying to personally attack you, is what I am saying. I'd just like to see it stop.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Yeah let's just sweep this under the rug and pretend that it never happened. After the hush-hush settlements and enough lapsed time maybe everyone will forget about it...

Until it happens to them. 

BTW, that's not LA's finest. It's Hawthorne's, my hometown, finest. And at least they aren't robbing people on the streets like the good ole days.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Christopher, you can spin my statement how you like, but re-read what I said and realize you are now directly part of the problem. You weren't there, aren't on the jury, you don't have the facts. You have what so many others in social media have these days tearing the country apart. An unsubstantiated opinion and a lack of critical thinking or an open mind, in this case. I add in this case, because you usually are pretty spot on, with what you say.

I initially said:

This makes my guts hurt the way my fellow country men and women act. Not only the video, or the actions in the video, but talking about it like it's worthy of being repeated to anyone that wasn't there or *isn't deciding the case*.




Christopher Smith said:


> Yeah let's just sweep this under the rug and pretend that it never happened. After the hush-hush settlements and enough lapsed time maybe everyone will forget about it...
> 
> Until it happens to them.
> 
> BTW, that's not LA's finest. It's Hawthorne's, my hometown, finest. And at least they aren't robbing people on the streets like the good ole days.


----------



## Josh Sutherland (Sep 21, 2011)

I hate seeing this crap


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

I would have watched the video and moved on. I certainly wouldn't have brought it here for review and judgement by the WDF membership. 

The truth is, you never know what you would have done or how you would have handled something until you are faced with it... that is, unless you have mad skills due to training, experience, and education that typically develops excellent critical thinking skills and reactivity under stress or situations of perceived danger.


----------



## Doug Wright 2 (Jul 24, 2011)

This vid just ruined my whole day and I havnt even left the house for work yet.


----------



## Alice Bezemer (Aug 4, 2010)

Lynda Myers said:


> LA's finest were they right or wrong?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej-2FlWGWcU


Great way to start a person's day.... They browse the forum, find your link, click it and get to watch how a dog gets shot. 

Thank you for making my day! Next time don't post shit like this without a warning about what it's about? Why in gods name did you post it anyway? Stupid thing to post on the forum, specially with the added question added to it... Stir much? 

:roll: ](*,)


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

I think that the most significant part of this video is concerning the dog, since this is a dog related board.

regardless of what anyone thinks, that guy was a total idiot.

for all the people outraged about the dog, what do you think should have happened in that instance? Are they supposed to wait until the dog bites one of them?

If that was me, and they shot my dog, I would blame myself, not the cops.

This guy put his dog in a terrible scenario, and set him up to get shot.

Proper containment could have prevented the dog from being involved at all....

Rolling up the windows, or having some good training could have prevented the dog being involved. Once he is allowed to jump out of the car, running at officers who have their hands on his owner, it is a done deal in my eyes.

That was a rottweiler, not a Jack Russell.. 

I dont know about everyone else, but I would just assume that my dog might decide to jump out the window and attack, if a couple guys were putting thier hands on me like that. The dog doesnt know those are the police.


----------



## Eric Read (Aug 14, 2006)

aren't cops supposed to calm down a situation???????? They let the guy go on for quite a while and then as he's getting ready to leave THEN they decide to confront him as he's leaving? Then instead of, "sir, could you roll up your windows a bit and contain your dog while we ask you a few questions?", it's get over here, cuff and push up against a poll for playing loud music and "walking a large dog" WTF is that? Is that even a real charge? 

Not saying this guy wasn't looking to make a statement, but just going off how these officers responded, I'd say a statement needs to be made. 

I'm usually with the cops and just see it as a bad situation, but give them the benefit of the doubt. Not on this one, this is on them. They ignored him for a good while, then when he's leaving, they decide to raise the stakes. The backstory that seems to be coming out isn't going to help their cases either if it all holds true.


----------



## Doug Wright 2 (Jul 24, 2011)

It is the owners fault. Should have secured the dog. Goes to show you why why training and knowing your dog is paramount. Sucks for the dog and owner but I'm guessing the lesson is learned. I didnt like what I saw, but its a reality.


----------



## Tiago Fontes (Apr 17, 2011)

Wrong, period.


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> My opinion, Lynda. I'd like to see this video taken down because the people that need to see it and understand seeing what they need to, wont.
> 
> What they need to see is: People poke the bear until they get mauled. Then they wonder why.
> 
> ...


Dave, I understand what your saying andf normally am very supportive of police officers and the job the have to do. But feel that both parties were wrong and handled the situation poorly. I think Joby said it best in that ultimately it was the handler's responsibly to secure the dog in the car.


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

Alice Bezemer said:


> Great way to start a person's day.... They browse the forum, find your link, click it and get to watch how a dog gets shot.
> 
> Thank you for making my day! Next time don't post shit like this without a warning about what it's about? Why in gods name did you post it anyway? Stupid thing to post on the forum, specially with the added question added to it... Stir much?
> 
> :roll: ](*,)


While I probably should have gave a warning as adults we can not leave it up to others to censor what we hear, watch or read! On the video it clearly states that Police shoot dog for barking in big letters so that should have an indicator that you may not want to watch this video. jmt


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> I think that the most significant part of this video is concerning the dog, since this is a dog related board.
> 
> regardless of what anyone thinks, that guy was a total idiot.
> 
> ...


Ding, ding, ding we have a winner!


----------



## Eric Read (Aug 14, 2006)

for some reason I get the feeling these cops decided at that point they were looking for a confrontation every bit as much as the guy video taping. I have to wonder how they would have reacted when they guy doesn't comply with them and instead walks around his car rolling up windows or reaching thru his car to roll up a window. because cops are so understanding when they see you reaching in a car after they've told you to do something. LOL


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

So I don't understand why they put the guy with the dog in handcuffs/arrested him. What did he do wrong? How was he interfering? He didn't go up to the officers, didn't get in their faces, he didn't get in the way, he didn't touch anyone. Lots of people were filming this thing, the guy who took the video we are watching, and there's another guy in the video who's videoing, I'm sure there were tons of people filming, and there were tons of bystanders who had things to say, but only this guy gets handcuffed and arrested?

In this article there is the statement from the PD about what happened with the dog:

http://www.11alive.com/news/article/297618/166/Video-shows-cop-shooting-dog-arresting-owner


"A statement from the Hawthorne Police Department detailed his alleged interference: "This interference included loud, distracting music (from the individual's vehicle), and his intentional walking within close proximity to armed officers, while holding an 80-pound Rottweiler on a long leash-line," the statement said."

So the guy was arrested for walking his dog on a leash and playing music.......SERIOUSLY?????? Please take note, you can clearly see on the video when he's walking around with the dog on leash, the bad guys were already arrested and handcuffed and sitting on the curb, and the police had already come out of the house. The dog while on the leash was not threatening and did not show any aggression whatsoever. So does this mean the guy was arrested because they thought maybe he was going to do something with the dog??? BULLSHIT. I'm sorry, but this does NOT ring true for me, does NOT pass the stink test. I think he pissed the officers off and that's why they arrested him, and if that's the case, it's WRONG.

The guy was acting like a rooster but that's not against the law I don't think. Most of the time I fall on the side of the police, like the time that kid spit on the officer. BUT they aren't always right, they aren't infallible, and I think when officers screw up, they need to be held accountable.


----------



## Alice Bezemer (Aug 4, 2010)

*Re: How Would Have Handled This?*



Lynda Myers said:


> While I probably should have gave a warning as adults we can not leave it up to others to censor what we hear, watch or read! On the video it clearly states that Police shoot dog for barking in big letters so that should have an indicator that you may not want to watch this video. jmt


In fact I didn't watch it as I did read the description and I'm not into calling judge games on police actions from a video that shows only a moment of time. Point is, you could have labeled it as what it was. Sorry for pointing out the obvious. :roll:


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Lynda Myers said:


> LA's finest were they right or wrong?



I don't know.


I personally hate these "watch this clip of LE and then make a judgment call" invitations. This is just my personal opinion.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Can someone also explain why it's okay to critique everything anyone ever does unless it's a cop?

This was undoubtedly wrong. There was no reason to "be there." Just like the cop in Detroit who shot the innocent 7-year-old girl to death in her grandmother's arms and the cop in Ohio who shot a litter of kittens in front of a bunch of kids as he told them they were going to kitty heaven. We can't possibly understand anything about the situation, because a cop did it. But if this was Joe Schmoe you'd ALL be the first person to post it here.

No one believes in police brutality until it happens to them. Everyone just wants to look away and pretend like it doesn't exist.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Seriously, this video is all over the place with all sorts of stupid comments. I was hoping it wouldn't get posted here too :-(


----------



## Lisa Brazeau (May 6, 2010)

Couldn't agree more with Katie, Susan, and Eric! Further more, it's our patriotic duty to keep the powers that be accountable. I support the police and the services they provide, but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to criticize bad behavior. And no, playing music and walking your dog is not 'suspicious activity' or interfering with an investigation. Those cops were pissed that he was taking video of them, and decided to throw some muscle around. They should be ashamed.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Katie Finlay said:


> Can someone also explain why it's okay to critique everything anyone ever does unless it's a cop?
> 
> This was undoubtedly wrong. There was no reason to "be there." Just like the cop in Detroit who shot the innocent 7-year-old girl to death in her grandmother's arms and the cop in Ohio who shot a litter of kittens in front of a bunch of kids as he told them they were going to kitty heaven. We can't possibly understand anything about the situation, because a cop did it. But if this was Joe Schmoe you'd ALL be the first person to post it here.
> 
> No one believes in police brutality until it happens to them. Everyone just wants to look away and pretend like it doesn't exist.



For Gods sake Katie, shooting a dog in self defense because the stupid owner can't mind his own business and secure his dog is NOT police brutality !


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Ah yes, I realize what's happening here. I was preoccupied with other things last week to know what our crisis of the week was, but here, this one is the WDF crisis for this week.

Why is it that damned near everything needs to be judged, labeled, examined, and picked apart till there's virtually nothing left of it. Everything else aside, I participate in this forum to read informative posts, learn about new products or techniques and get a good laugh from time to time but one thing I did not sign up for was this bullshit drama that people seem to cling to as a necessary part of their lives.

I don't want to evaluate the video or more specifically the actions of the people in it. This isn't the first dog shot, and won't be the last mistake an officer or dog owner makes.

To everyone on the WDF, HAVE A NICE DAY. I really mean that. I hope that at the end of the day something cool or memorable happens to each and every one of you.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

I have a quote that I just saw on facebook. I think it's appropriate.


"Some people create their own storms, then get upset when it rains." - Unknown

Nicole. I hope YOU have a good day. My days are getting more memorable as I go, ut thanks for the well wishes.



Nicole Stark said:


> Ah yes, I realize what's happening here. I was preoccupied with other things last week to know what our crisis of the week was, but here, this one is the WDF crisis for this week.
> 
> Why is it that damned near everything needs to be judged, labeled, examined, and picked apart till there's virtually nothing left of it. Everything else aside, I participate in this forum to read informative posts, learn about new products or techniques and get a good laugh from time to time but one thing I did not sign up for was this bullshit drama that people seem to cling to as a necessary part of their lives.
> 
> ...


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Nicole Stark said:


> I don't want to evaluate the video or more specifically the actions of the people in it.


Then don't. It's really just that simple. There's no one making you participate in this discussion. And I want to hear your protestations about the subject at hand as much as you want to read this thread. So if you don't read it, you won't post, then everyone can be happy. Now isn't that a nice simple way of handling things?


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Thomas Barriano said:


> For Gods sake Katie, shooting a dog in self defense because the stupid owner can't mind his own business and secure his dog is NOT police brutality !


What the police do is the business of the people. 

Is ironic that many people want to express their rights by running around with a gun or portraying the president as a monkey, yet get upset by a citizen doing the most basic thing we all should be doing as Americans by watching, reporting or criticizing our government.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Here is a police execution of a dog. If anyone can figure out a way to make this justifiable, I'm all ears.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ozRehyahtc&feature=youtube_gdata_player


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Christopher Smith said:


> Then don't. It's really just that simple. There's no one making you participate in this discussion. And I want to hear your protestations about the subject at hand as much as you want to read this thread. So if you don't read it, you won't post, then everyone can be happy. Now isn't that a nice simple way of handling things?


That's certainly one way of looking at things. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I'll certainly give some thought to the possibility that everyone would be happy if I stopped posting.

I get the impression that you have some surpressed resentment within you. Its good for you to be able to talk things through that trigger that within you. That's the beauty of topics like this. 

I find you to be a likeable guy and one that I have respect for. But I often wonder why it seems to bother you to the extent it does when someone doest share your opinion. Its almost as if you take it personally.


----------



## Mark Sheplak (Oct 28, 2011)

Christopher Smith said:


> Here is a police execution of a dog. If anyone can figure out a way to make this justifiable, I'm all ears.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ozRehyahtc&feature=youtube_gdata_player


No one can justify that as it was horrible decision making by the LEOs. The follow up to that story indicates that they admitted the mistake.

http://www.examiner.com/article/mis...officer-for-shooting-dog-agrees-to-settlement

It doesn't bring the dog back.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Wow. The police are not above reproach. I see no reason under the sun why people can't comment on this video. Granted we aren't police and we don't always understand why they do the things they do, that doesn't mean we are supposed to shut up and not comment when we see something that we think is wrong, and no matter what the tactics are some things are fairly freaking obvious. I'm pretty sure commenting on a video where a dog is shot and killed is something we are allowed to do in the USA, and not one comment on this thread has been disrespectful towards law enforcement. Just like someone is allowed to video with their camera, walk their dog on a leash, even make wise ass comments. All perfectly legal...at least it's supposed to be.:roll:


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Nicole Stark said:


> That's certainly one way of looking at things. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I'll certainly give some thought to the possibility that everyone would be happy if I stopped posting.
> 
> I get the impression that you have some surpressed resentment within you. Its good for you to be able to talk things through that trigger that within you. That's the beauty of topics like this.
> 
> I find you to be a likeable guy and one that I have respect for. But I often wonder why it seems to bother you to the extent it does when someone doest share your opinion. Its almost as if you take it personally.


HA!  You got mad 'cause I solved your problem.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Naw not really. To do that I would have needed a problem to solve. I simply indicated that I choose to look at and relate to things differently.

But if it makes you feel good to believe that, then please do so. In fact, repeat it again.

Susan, I am quite glad you are posting your thoughts. It's a freedom that everyone should embrace and exercise.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

dog sure looked like it was attempting to attack to me.

like I said, dog jumped from car, and basically tried to attack the police, 100% dudes fault for not securing his dog.

and yes I have also had run ins with police that needed some counseling or some time off, myself.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Nicole Stark said:


> That's certainly one way of looking at things. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I'll certainly give some thought to the possibility that everyone would be happy if I stopped posting.
> 
> I get the impression that you have some surpressed resentment within you. Its good for you to be able to talk things through that trigger that within you. That's the beauty of topics like this.
> 
> I find you to be a likeable guy and one that I have respect for. But I often wonder why it seems to bother you to the extent it does when someone doest share your opinion. Its almost as if you take it personally.


Nicole, if the subject matter of a thread is not apparent from the title, it's very apparent from the OP. If it's of no interest to you, why ARE you reading and posting?

I don't think anyone is taking anything personally. I think people are upset that law enforcement can get away with literally everything.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Joby Becker said:


> dog sure looked like it was attempting to attack to me.
> 
> like I said, dog jumped from car, and basically tried to attack the police, 100% dudes fault for not securing his dog.
> 
> and yes I have also had run ins with police that needed some counseling or some time off, myself.


If the unsuspecting guy had been threatened by random people and the dog bit him, everyone would be stoked. If he'd been shot by the random people, everyone would be sad. But the same thing happens with cops and it's the owner's fault.

The guy was doing nothing wrong, probably didn't think he was going to be arrested (he was not doing any obstructing, and if you're going to say he should be minding his own business I'm going to assume you've never watched the show Cops because you're totally uninterested in real-life commotion), so why would he think his dog was going to attack somebody?


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Katie Finlay said:


> Nicole, if the subject matter of a thread is not apparent from the title, it's very apparent from the OP. If it's of no interest to you, why ARE you reading and posting?
> 
> I don't think anyone is taking anything personally. I think people are upset that law enforcement can get away with literally everything.


I just wanted to see if you would respond if I addressed Chris. LOL. Have a good one.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Nicole Stark said:


> I just wanted to see if you would respond if I addressed Chris. LOL. Have a good one.


That only means I thought your initial post was equally as pointless and annoying. I also love that everyone gets on my ass for defending a friend. Like you never defend any of your friends. Or maybe ya'll just have none.


----------



## David Winners (Apr 4, 2012)

Sucks the dog was shot. Good boy for helping daddy.

The handler was at fault for not securing him, but I doubt he planned on getting detained. Maybe he was counting on the dog going after the cops. There are some stupid people out there.

I can't comment on the cops. I didn't hear what was said, wasn't there to see what the handler may have done before the video started. It could go either way. 

There are good cops and bad cops. There are good judgement calls and mistakes. I train hard in the hopes that I will never make a mistake and unjustifiably take a life... any life.

When a dog charges me or my working dog, I try to warn it off, but if it gets close, it's dead. We had to kill 26 dogs in Afghanistan, and every one felt horrible.

I like cops with gray hair. They don't get excited by much. It's tragic that the dog died, and horrible if one of our officers unjustifiably created a situation that cost the dog his life, but I'm not going to judge something of which I only have partial knowledge.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Katie Finlay said:


> If the unsuspecting guy had been threatened by random people and the dog bit him, everyone would be stoked. If he'd been shot by the random people, everyone would be sad. But the same thing happens with cops and it's the owner's fault.
> 
> The guy was doing nothing wrong, probably didn't think he was going to be arrested (he was not doing any obstructing, and if you're going to say he should be minding his own business I'm going to assume you've never watched the show Cops because you're totally uninterested in real-life commotion), so why would he think his dog was going to attack somebody?



I have probably seen every episode of Cops that has been aired.

My point is, he put his dog away in the car, and failed to secure it, and walked right up to the police, he had plenty of time to secure his dog. 

There is no excuse for not securing the dog, a million random things can happen, that is why you secure your dog.

I have seen dogs get out of vehicles in traffic and get hit, get out of vehicles and bite people, get out of vehicles and attack other dogs, all with my own eyes, in real life.

There is no excuse for not securing a dog in a vehicle in my eyes period.

Especially if you are assuming that there is a chance that there may be some sort of altercation or any situation that might set the dog off. Which Mr. Rosby surely did, since he is the one that stopped, got out, and was shouting at the police, and since he already has a previous lawsuit against the police for alleged prior mistreatment, he would have to be a moron to assume that there was no chance anything was going to happen. Especially if the police are hotheads around that town..a moron.

Some people might even construe that he was looking for an incident to happen, by seeking out and being antagonistic at a crime scene to help his pending civil lawsuit that was filed previously to this event. 

He parked his car right at the perimeter and left his stereo blaring very loudly, got out, with his rottweiler and his phone, and and was yelling at the police, only an idiot would do that. Then he puts his dog away and basically walks right up to the cops and turns around, looks like he was inviting them to cuff him to me...to be 100% honest... Listen to the recording, I hear no commands, and I hear a couple stunned witnesses that are baffled by the guys behavior, because it is stupid...

Illegal, maybe, maybe not.. (obstruction. who knows, active SWAT crime scene, loud music, yelling at police, distracting them..) antagonistic YES... stupid...YES...not to mention he appears to have parked illegally to me according to a couple applicable statutes, nevermind he is AT the perimeter of the active crime scene, purposefully, distracting the police from doing their job.

This guy made it a point to stop his car at an incident, got out of his car with his dog, yelling at them, yelling "civil rights violation" before they even did anything to him, he puts the dog away, does not shut leash in door, roll up windows, does not tell police that he needs to secure his dog, or ask police at all if he can secure his dog.

This guy was not just filming the police, he pushed the envelope to encourage some interaction. There are at least 2 other parties filming, I didnt notice the police going after them.

Aside from all points made above, it makes no difference to me who was right or wrong in the precipitation of the initial event, the guys dog jumped out of the vehicle and tried to attack people. period... 

He is responsible for the actions of his dog, and has a responsibility to keep his dog safe. Keeping him inside a car with the windows down far enough for him to get out, without slamming leash in door, or otherwise securing the dog, he failed to do either of those things. That is the bottom line, concerning the dog.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> dog sure looked like it was attempting to attack to me.


Joby the police say the reason they handcuffed/arrested the guy in the first place was because he was playing loud music and walking his dog on a leash near the police. Come on! That's pure bullshit. 

The dog never got aggressive while the guy was walking it on the leash.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

why didnt he just leave when he put his dog up? Why didnt the officers just ignore him? Both parties created their own jeopardy...and the dog paid the price...but to say that Law Enforcement gets away with everything is a gross overstatement....


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Some days I hate how ****ing stupid, blind and thoughtless some people are on this forum. Today is one of those days.

It scares me thinking that you are all supposed to be a jury of my peers if I need one....


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

susan tuck said:


> Joby the police say the reason they handcuffed/arrested the guy in the first place was because he was playing loud music and walking his dog on a leash near the police. Come on! That's pure bullshit.
> 
> The dog never got aggressive while the guy was walking it on the leash.


whats bullshit..

the dude was driving his car, drove up, pulled up at a crime scene, parked illegally, playing his music way too loud at the perimeter of a SWAT barracaded suspect interdiction, was yelling at the police, and then basically turned around, held out his hands and basically asked to be cuffed.

If I walked up to some dude and started yelling at him, maybe insulted him, it is illegal for him to touch me, but that doesnt mean I would be surprised if I got punched in my face, if I push my luck too far.

even all that considered, ok lets say I agree it was bullshit, and agree that they should have ignored the guys attempts to get them to come over to him, his dog getting shot is still 100% his own fault for not securing it.

THE DOG WAS OBVISOUSLY LUNGING TO ATTACK. clear cut case of self defense any way you slice it. The officers did not antagonize or mistreat the dog, they were attempting to secure a rottweiler that just jumped out a car window, and was loose and acting aggressively.

he probably could have gotten in his car and drove away, when he put the dog in there. I highly doubt they would have pursued him...

there is a guy that just got his Presa Canario shot by a normal citizen that I know of.

The guy was at a friends, and left his dog in the backyard with the friends dogs, they got out of the yard, he did not know the dogs were out of the yard. 

A guy shot his dog, the dog came up to him, and he says that the dog tried to bite him, he had slobber on his sleeve, but no injuries.

I told that guy it was his fault too....for not securing his dog.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> whats bullshit..
> 
> the dude was driving his car, drove up, pulled up at a crime scene, parked illegally, playing his music way too loud at the perimeter of a SWAT barracaded suspect interdiction, was yelling at the police, and then basically turned around, held out his hands and basically asked to be cuffed.
> 
> ...




I agree 100% with your point that the guy should have done a better job of securing his dog, because if he had, the dog would not have been shot.

I just think the official statement that the guy was arrested in the first place for playing loud music and walking his dog on a leash is pure bullshit, the guy annoyed and pissed off the cops so the cops did what they did. Doesn't mean they were right to do it.


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler (Apr 25, 2008)

I didn't watch the video. 

But isn't it a crime in California to do something that distracts police from paying attention to their task at hand? 

Laura


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Katie Finlay said:


> That only means I thought your initial post was equally as pointless and annoying. I also love that everyone gets on my ass for defending a friend. Like you never defend any of your friends. Or maybe ya'll just have none.


Dang Katie. I thought we were cool. Your response disappointed me. I guess there's not much else to say then. But let me be clear about something. I thought and felt plenty about what I saw in that video. I simply tried to offer a different perspective on things, one of which was to genuinely state that I hoped everyone had a nice day especially since a number of people were negatively impacted by what they saw in the video. If that came across to anyone as pointless and annoying, then its clear I misjudged any potential benefits that may have had on anyone.

I started my day watching one get shot and ended it by saving the life of another. That certainly made a difference to someone else. My words probably made no difference to anyone here but my actions elsewhere did. Have a good evening.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Where did you get this "official" statement? The news?



susan tuck said:


> I agree 100% with your point that the guy should have done a better job of securing his dog, because if he had, the dog would not have been shot.
> 
> I just think the official statement that the guy was arrested in the first place for playing loud music and walking his dog on a leash is pure bullshit, the guy annoyed and pissed off the cops so the cops did what they did. Doesn't mean they were right to do it.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Nicole Stark said:


> Dang Katie. I thought we were cool. Your response disappointed me. I guess there's not much else to say then. But let me be clear about something. I thought and felt plenty about what I saw in that video. I simply tried to offer a different perspective on things, one of which was to genuinely state that I hoped everyone had a nice day especially since a number of people were negatively impacted by what they saw in the video. If that came across to anyone as pointless and annoying, then its clear I misjudged any potential benefits that may have had on anyone.
> 
> I started my day watching one get shot and ended it by saving the life of another. That certainly made a difference to someone else. My words probably made no difference to anyone here but my actions elsewhere did. Have a good evening.


All you said was that you didn't like posts like these, so why get involved.

I used to think you were cool, and then you go ahead and show you're just another person who doesn't notice a single post I make unless it's related to Chris.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

](*,)](*,)](*,)](*,)](*,)](*,)](*,)](*,)](*,)](*,)](*,)](*,)


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Laura Bollschweiler said:


> I didn't watch the video.
> 
> But isn't it a crime in California to do something that distracts police from paying attention to their task at hand?
> 
> Laura


It's pretty much illegal everywhere. The cops don't have to make the arrest immediately. If the guy caused a problem and made it unsafe for the officers, then the incident was taken care of, the cops can walk right over to the dumbass and arrest him. Just because the incident may be over and all worked out well doesn't make the crime go away. Some people ask for it. This guy may have. Can't say for sure because like everyone else I don't have 100% of the facts. Sucks the dog got shot. I agree completely with that. The dog was innocent. The owner is a dumbass. If the cops were wrong then they are wrong. No one here was there and all we got is a video of an incident that is likely edited or omits things, and a news statement...like those are real reliable.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Howard Knauf said:


> It's pretty much illegal everywhere. The cops don't have to make the arrest immediately. If the guy caused a problem and made it unsafe for the officers, then the incident was taken care of, the cops can walk right over to the dumbass and arrest him. Just because the incident may be over and all worked out well doesn't make the crime go away. Some people ask for it. This guy may have. Can't say for sure because like everyone else I don't have 100% of the facts. Sucks the dog got shot. I agree completely with that. The dog was innocent. The owner is a dumbass. If the cops were wrong then they are wrong. No one here was there and all we got is a video of an incident that is likely edited or omits things, and a news statement...like those are real reliable.




_"Can't say for sure because like everyone else I don't have 100% of the facts. Sucks the dog got shot. I agree completely with that. The dog was innocent. The owner is a dumbass. If the cops were wrong then they are wrong. No one here was there and all we got is a video of an incident that is likely edited or omits things, and a news statement ... like those are real reliable."_

I sure do agree.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Dave Colborn said:


> Where did you get this "official" statement? The news?


From my first post on this thread: 

http://www.11alive.com/news/article/...rresting-owner

"A statement from the Hawthorne Police Department detailed his alleged interference: "This interference included loud, distracting music (from the individual's vehicle), and his intentional walking within close proximity to armed officers, while holding an 80-pound Rottweiler on a long leash-line,"

Also in many other articles including this one:

http://www.officer.com/news/1098134...-receives-threats-after-fatal-shooting-of-dog

"Swain said in a statement that the man was walking too close to officers with the dog and that the music coming from his car was a distraction."


----------



## Meg O'Donovan (Aug 20, 2012)

David Winners said:


> Sucks the dog was shot. Good boy for helping daddy.
> 
> The handler was at fault for not securing him, but I doubt he planned on getting detained. Maybe he was counting on the dog going after the cops. There are some stupid people out there.
> 
> ...


** Voice of reason, and there were others. A great part of the history that led up to the national holiday tomorrow was the ability and choice of varied citizens to discuss and resolve their differences respectfully. Attacks _ad hominem_ (with words) don't create that kind of ambience. Remember that this is an international forum, and the world is watching (and reading).

Then resolve to let this conflict rest for the time being, and focus on having a good 4th of July with your friends and family, even those who don't agree with you.[-(


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Katie Finlay said:


> All you said was that you didn't like posts like these, so why get involved.
> 
> I used to think you were cool, and then you go ahead and show you're just another person who doesn't notice a single post I make unless it's related to Chris.


First, I'm too much of a non conformist and probably have never been considered "cool" by anyone. Second, and more importantly, my response really had nothing to do with what you asked me. I was just being silly and pulled a typical Thomas move on you. I never expected you to take my remark seriously. I figured we had talked enough via pm for you to realize I wouldn't do something like that to you with malicious intent. I'm sorry that you took it that way.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Well you might want to edit YOUR misleading statement that edited the part about the distraction. Sounds like in all the reports the problem was the guy was a *distraction* at a high risk call, not loud music and walking a dog. I don't ever want to see you on a jury, if the truth is what is being sought. 



susan tuck said:


> From my first post on this thread:
> 
> http://www.11alive.com/news/article/...rresting-owner
> 
> ...


----------



## David Winners (Apr 4, 2012)

It is clear that some people don't understand that being distracted while apprehending a high risk target is somehow dangerous, illegal, immoral, and disrespectful, to those that put themselves in harm's way to protect us.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Nicole Stark said:


> First, I'm too much of a non conformist and probably have never been considered "cool" by anyone. Second, and more importantly, my response really had nothing to do with what you asked me. I was just being silly and pulled a typical Thomas move on you. I never expected you to take my remark seriously. I figured we had talked enough via pm for you to realize I wouldn't do something like that to you with malicious intent. I'm sorry that you took it that way.


Then I apologize. My misunderstanding.


----------



## Alice Bezemer (Aug 4, 2010)

Bob Scott said:


> ](*,)](*,)](*,)](*,)](*,)](*,)](*,)](*,)](*,)](*,)](*,)](*,)


Hey! No abusing the brick wall! Its had a beating over the last 2 weeks already, lets be nice to it and give it a break.... *pets the brick wall*


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)




----------



## Alice Bezemer (Aug 4, 2010)

Joby Becker said:


>


Bob! Never mind my asking you to stop abusing the brick wall! Joby found a fresh supply of walls to abuse! :lol:


----------



## Tiago Fontes (Apr 17, 2011)

Katie Finlay;423137show you're just another person who doesn't notice a single post I make unless it's related to Chris.[/QUOTE said:


> I can confirm your suspicion... She's definitely not the only one.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Dave Colborn said:


> Well you might want to edit YOUR misleading statement that edited the part about the distraction. Sounds like in all the reports the problem was the guy was a *distraction* at a high risk call, not loud music and walking a dog. I don't ever want to see you on a jury, if the truth is what is being sought.


I didn't edit anything out, and I included the quote and link with my original post, Dave. As far as seeing anyone on a jury, I sure hope I don't see anyone like you who apparently thinks all officers walk on water and their shit never stinks.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

susan tuck said:


> So I don't understand why they put the guy with the dog in handcuffs/arrested him. What did he do wrong? How was he interfering? He didn't go up to the officers, didn't get in their faces, he didn't get in the way, he didn't touch anyone. Lots of people were filming this thing, the guy who took the video we are watching, and there's another guy in the video who's videoing, I'm sure there were tons of people filming, and there were tons of bystanders who had things to say, but only this guy gets handcuffed and arrested?
> 
> In this article there is the statement from the PD about what happened with the dog:
> 
> ...


Here's my original post, Dave. I edited NOTHING out.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

OK. So a doctor is doing heart surgery on you and Leon Rosby walks in.....

You want that ****er critiquing the doctor while he pokes around in your heart? Want your doctor distracted? 

The comparison is people with lives in their hands. Don't be stupid and see this for what it is.

You sort of did forget to mention the distraction part.

I think everyone deserves to have people that can think and come to a conclusion to be on their jury. Thing is, that's not what an attorney wants. so you have a more likely shot of being on a jury, because you don't really need facts. You can solve the whole thing from the interweb.



susan tuck said:


> I didn't edit anything out, and I included the quote and link with my original post, Dave. As far as seeing anyone on a jury, I sure hope I don't see anyone like you who apparently thinks all officers walk on water and their shit never stinks.


 


susan tuck said:


> Joby the police say the reason they handcuffed/arrested the guy in the first place was because he was playing loud music and walking his dog on a leash near the police. Come on! That's pure bullshit.
> 
> The dog never got aggressive while the guy was walking it on the leash.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Dave Colborn said:


> OK. So a doctor is doing heart surgery on you and Leon Rosby walks in.....
> 
> You want that ****er critiquing the doctor while he pokes around in your heart? Want your doctor distracted?
> 
> ...


Nope I sure didn't Dave, go back and read my original post, I left nothing out. In my second post I paraphrased the first post.

My point Dave, is I think the police department statement is baloney, I think they were reaching, because there were lots of people saying things in the background, the guy with the rottweiler was walking around with the dog on a leash, neither he nor the dog was a distraction or a threat to the officers. 

Your analogy doesn't work, police, unlike surgeons, work in a public place, and therefore have to be able to work with the public. 

Dave you can climb right down off your high horse because in your original post you said "What they need to see is: People poke the bear until they get mauled. Then they wonder why.", and in your above post you have referred to Leon Rosby (someone you don't know and have only seen for a couple minutes on a video clip) as a ****er, oh but wait - YOU don't make snap judgements everyone else who has a differing opinion from you does. It's OK for you to make a judgement about the civilian but wrong for anyone else to do the same thing regarding the officers? 

And you say I can't think and I don't need facts and I'm stupid because I don't see this the way you do? You're a riot, Dave.

Anyway, have a happy 4th, Dave, see ya around the bend!


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Anyway, I think we can all agree that it's too bad the guy didn't secure his dog better, had he rolled up the windows so the dog couldn't jump out, or tied his dog in the car, we wouldn't even be talking about this. 
Sad to see it happen.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

This I can agree with.. You have a happy fourth, too.



susan tuck said:


> Anyway, I think we can all agree that it's too bad the guy didn't secure his dog better, had he rolled up the windows so the dog couldn't jump out, or tied his dog in the car, we wouldn't even be talking about this.
> Sad to see it happen.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Dave Colborn said:


> This I can agree with.. You have a happy fourth, too.


And I agree with you that jumping to conclusions is never the right thing to do. I find you to be someone whom I admire, I think your posts are always well thought out and logical, so if you think I have jumped to conclusions and am being unfair, that gives me pause, because being fair is of the utmost importance to me, so I will take a step back in this and say no more.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Let's just hug and talk it out..... I am sure I am or have jumped to conclusions that I can sort out in my own head to not be conclusions. I think the dog is the focus, you brought it back to that with your last post. 



susan tuck said:


> And I agree with you that jumping to conclusions is never the right thing to do. I find you to be someone whom I admire, I think your posts are always well thought out and logical, so if you think I have jumped to conclusions and am being unfair, that gives me pause, because being fair is of the utmost importance to me, so I will take a step back in this and say no more.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

I finally found the whole statement from the Hawthorne PD. Here's the thing: The whole episode actually lasted close to 2 hours. The video tape is only the last couple of minutes. I have no idea what transpired between the police and the owner of the dog during this incident leading up to the last couple of videotaped minutes. For all I know, the guy with the dog did nothing wrong or may have been much more intrusive in the time leading up to what was videoed. The fact is, I don't have all the information. Therefore, I did leap to conclusion based on what I saw on the video tape, which is wrong, and I apologize.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Thanks for posting that. Gives people a little more information to go on.





susan tuck said:


> I finally found the whole statement from the Hawthorne PD. Here's the thing: The whole episode actually lasted close to 2 hours. The video tape is only the last couple of minutes. I have no idea what transpired between the police and the owner of the dog during this incident leading up to the last couple of videotaped minutes. For all I know, the guy with the dog did nothing wrong or may have been much more intrusive in the time leading up to what was videoed. The fact is, I don't have all the information. Therefore, I did leap to conclusion based on what I saw on the video tape, which is wrong, and I apologize.


----------



## jim stevens (Jan 30, 2012)

The owner is a fool, if nothing else for not putting up the windows. The officer should be fired, no questions asked for turning loose six or seven shots in a residential area without a life threatening situation. I carry a gun 24/7, and if I did that, I would still be locked the hell up. The officer has no business carrying a firearm, period, end of the story. It was careless, dangerous, reckless endangerment of bystanders. Police departments need to purge such idiocy from their ranks.


----------



## Zakia Days (Mar 13, 2009)

will fernandez said:


> why didnt he just leave when he put his dog up? Why didnt the officers just ignore him? Both parties created their own jeopardy...and the dog paid the price...but to say that Law Enforcement gets away with everything is a gross overstatement....


I was thinking the same thing. I'd have put my dog in the car and left. They can pull me over further up the street if they want, but at least I know my dog is secured in the car. Maybe they'll let me call someone to come pick him up. It's not likely they'll just let you walk up to your car as they're trying to arrest you, put the key in the ignition to roll up windows or leave the a/c on for your dog, so f'k it. Eat the arrest or flee charge and make the dog safe, LOL. Lawyer will fix it. HOpefully.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

jim stevens said:


> The owner is a fool, if nothing else for not putting up the windows. The officer should be fired, no questions asked for turning loose six or seven shots in a residential area without a life threatening situation. I carry a gun 24/7, and if I did that, I would still be locked the hell up. The officer has no business carrying a firearm, period, end of the story. It was careless, dangerous, reckless endangerment of bystanders. Police departments need to purge such idiocy from their ranks.


Okay, now that the officers have been exonerated on the ol interweb for their percieved bullshit actions, we have another arm chair quarterback using that same video clip to say the officer should be fired for his actions. Did you learn nothing? I bet if it was a fireman who did it you'd be wanting pics with the hero in his bunker gear:roll: Suppose the dog was mauling you or your child right there....what would you expect them to do? No matter what cops do they're always wrong in someone else's eyes. I shoulda been a fireman. Everyone loves hose draggers.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Howard Knauf said:


> Okay, now that the officers have been exonerated on the ol interweb for their percieved bullshit actions we have another armchair quarterback....


ouch...but I guess I did earn that lovely bit of sarcasm.
:lol:


----------



## jim stevens (Jan 30, 2012)

I didn't say anything about them being exonerated, my point is that you don't empty half a magazine into a residential area when there is no threat of life or death. I have nothing against police, I have a lot against people who use firearms unwisely, whether they are wearing a badge or not. In other words, if your canine jumped at me like that, would I be justified to pull my Glock and fire a few rounds into the dog, a hard sidewalk, city streets, rounds ricocheting all over hell? There may possibly be one or two people who have spent more time with a gun in my hands than me on this board, then again, maybe not. I have no tolerance for stupidity and a lack of common sense when carrying a gun, and this guy's judgment is lacking, I'm not talking about the dog, I'm talking about basic rules of handling a gun and good judgment. He sure as f&*& doesn't have it. He needs to be fired for his handling of a weapon, and poor judgment, not because he shot a dog, that is irrelevant to me. I don't know where the fireman comments came from.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Jim, You're making assumptions based on a narrow field of view in a video. THAT is poor judgement. If you were there and made your statements based on first hand knowledge then I'd probably agree with you. Lacking that, only assumtions can be made and you know what the acronym for "assume" means.


----------



## jim stevens (Jan 30, 2012)

I am aware of the fact that is is a portion of a video, but I think it is easy to see that the shots could have easily injured or killed people who were completely not involved in it. that is where the judgment comes in.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Anyone seen the one of the police that shot the AB that was wagging it's tail at him, even after he shot it once already?


----------



## David Winners (Apr 4, 2012)

jim stevens said:


> I am aware of the fact that is is a portion of a video, but I think it is easy to see that the shshotsould have easily injured or killed people who were completely not involved in it. that is where the judgment comes in.



So where do you draw the line? They had a guy in custody to deal with, so they couldn't separate and grab the leash. The dog lunged at the officer, attempting to bite. At what point do you take action against the dog? 

If he gets a hold of the officer, it's too late. His partner can't release the guy in custody. It looks like the officer placed shots at a steep downward angle into the dog and soil. I can't see his backdrop in the video. He may have weighed his choices in a split second and decided he had to take the shot or risk great injury, plus a guy in custody, no way to combat the dog because he's wearing it, and the potential risk for civilians trying to help. He may have panicked and fired out of desperation. He may just really hate Rottweilers. 

You do not know. 

I'd like to hear your plan, based in conjecture as it must be. What would you have done different Jim? 

I'd also like to know how many rounds you have fired in defense of your life?


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Jim, Unless you have another video with an HD panoramic view of the entire immediate area during the time of the shooting then you ARE assuming things that you have no real proof of, aren't you? You're making a judgement based on very limited information.


----------



## jim stevens (Jan 30, 2012)

He may have panicked and fired out of desperation.

You said it yourself. I would not have fired a gun in that setting, period. I have never fired a round in self defense, never claimed to, and it isn't about me. Just admit that his judgment was pure crap. It was. If I had done the same thing, how many charges would have been filed against me? He panicked, he fired a gun that could have killed a bystander, someone's child, who the hell knows. 

As far as a steep downward angle, go fire some into the street with a curb next door, and let me know how that turns out. There is no way telling where they will end up. I've shot enough into frozen winter ground, and seen leaves fall off the trees downrange in the wide open country and wish I hadn't shot as a kid. Just admit he was a reactionary fool. He was.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

jim stevens said:


> He may have panicked and fired out of desperation.
> 
> .


MAY have. We don't know, do we??



> I would not have fired a gun in that setting, period. I have never fired a round in self defense, never claimed to, and it isn't about me.


 Then you have no real standing here to judge, do you?



> Just admit that his judgment was pure crap. It was. If I had done the same thing, how many charges would have been filed against me? He panicked, he fired a gun that could have killed a bystander, someone's child, who the hell knows.


 Why admit to your opinion when none of us were there? BTW...in Florida you would not have been charged. Accidentally killing someone with no intent or malice will get you sued civilly but not charged criminally if you are legally in the right.



> Just admit he was a reactionary fool. He was.


when you provide proof I'll gladly admit it.


----------



## David Winners (Apr 4, 2012)

jim stevens said:


> He may have panicked and fired out of desperation.
> 
> You said it yourself. I would not have fired a gun in that setting, period. I have never fired a round in self defense, never claimed to, and it isn't about me. Just admit that his judgment was pure crap. It was. If I had done the same thing, how many charges would have been filed against me? He panicked, he fired a gun that could have killed a bystander, someone's child, who the hell knows.
> 
> As far as a steep downward angle, go fire some into the street with a curb next door, and let me know how that turns out. There is no way telling where they will end up. I've shot enough into frozen winter ground, and seen leaves fall off the trees downrange in the wide open country and wish I hadn't shot as a kid. Just admit he was a reactionary fool. He was.



Way to pick one sentence and run with it. I think you missed the point. 

Answer my question. What would you do Jim?


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Howard Knauf said:


> Jim, Unless you have another video with an HD panoramic view of the entire immediate area during the time of the shooting then you ARE assuming things that you have no real proof of, aren't you? You're making a judgement based on very limited information.


Howard and Jim, what you guys are looking for is available on Google Maps. The dog was shot at the intersection of 137th St and Jefferson Ave, Hawthorne CA. Search that address the use the street view feature to get an "HD panoramic view of the entire immediate area"


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Tiago Fontes said:


> I can confirm your suspicion... She's definitely not the only one.


There are many people on here who were gung-ho supportive of me until they realized who I trained with. Suddenly when I train with Chris MAYBE once a week, sometimes not that much, sometimes twice, I'm incapable of making my own decisions and having free thought on my own. It makes me wonder how they think I made it through life without Chris. I even trained dogs before I met Chris, getting a title in herding. So weird, right? That I managed to do that without Chris around, and no one to tell me what to think or do. 

Anyway, Nicole is fantastic. We are on the same page. But Nicole, I can't PM you because your box is full!


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Christopher Smith said:


> Howard and Jim, what you guys are looking for is available on Google Maps. The dog was shot at the intersection of 137th St and Jefferson Ave, Hawthorne CA. Search that address the use the street view feature to get an "HD panoramic view of the entire immediate area"



Don't mean to sound facetious Chris but a google areal will not depict the dynamic at that point in time, only a pic of the area. Won't do much to clear up this discussion on whether the cop was right or wrong.


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

jim stevens said:


> The owner is a fool, if nothing else for not putting up the windows. The officer should be fired, no questions asked for turning loose six or seven shots in a residential area without a life threatening situation. I carry a gun 24/7, and if I did that, I would still be locked the hell up. The officer has no business carrying a firearm, period, end of the story. It was careless, dangerous, reckless endangerment of bystanders. Police departments need to purge such idiocy from their ranks.


Jim, I think the guy was at fault for injecting himself into the situation with his dog. As one poster said, he was being a rooster, and he should have cleared the area rather than wander around making a social statement with his dog.

I know it's very easy to do the coulda, woulda, shoulda after the fact. That being said, I would like to know exactly how you would have handled the situation? Please explain how you would have dealt with the large, increasingly aggressive rottie?

Also do you know what type of rounds the officer carried in his weapon? There are many rounds on the market that specifically address ricochet issues but I don't know what type is standard issue for this department. Do you?


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Katie Finlay said:


> There are many people on here who were gung-ho supportive of me until they realized who I trained with. Suddenly when I train with Chris MAYBE once a week, sometimes not that much, sometimes twice, I'm incapable of making my own decisions and having free thought on my own. It makes me wonder how they think I made it through life without Chris. I even trained dogs before I met Chris, getting a title in herding. So weird, right? That I managed to do that without Chris around, and no one to tell me what to think or do.
> 
> Anyway, Nicole is fantastic. We are on the same page. But Nicole, I can't PM you because your box is full!


Katie I think you're lucky and smart to train with Christopher. I also know you have your own mind, and none of us always agrees with each other on everything. When we do agree, I prefer to think it's because great minds sometimes think alike!!!!! So ignore the pissy comments from the peanut gallery!
\\/\\/\\/


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

susan tuck said:


> Katie I think you're lucky and smart to train with Christopher. I also know you have your own mind, and none of us always agrees with each other. Try to ignore the pissy comments from the peanut gallery!!!!!!!
> \\/\\/\\/


Thanks Susan! I try but I swear its like every time I say something! Lol!


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Katie Finlay said:


> There are many people on here who were gung-ho supportive of me until they realized who I trained with. Suddenly when I train with Chris MAYBE once a week, sometimes not that much, sometimes twice, I'm incapable of making my own decisions and having free thought on my own. It makes me wonder how they think I made it through life without Chris. I even trained dogs before I met Chris, getting a title in herding. So weird, right? That I managed to do that without Chris around, and no one to tell me what to think or do.


I never one time heard even a whisper of this. Ever. From anyone.

That was all I had to say. Not trying to expand on the sub-thread. :lol:


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Howard Knauf said:


> Don't mean to sound facetious Chris but a google areal will not depict the dynamic at that point in time, only a pic of the area. Won't do much to clear up this discussion on whether the cop was right or wrong.


I understand that you can still get a line of sight. Are you saying you can't tell anything from that?


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Just a quick mention that two posts have been deleted. Please let's not have a secondary personal-flame thread.

Thank you.




Back to


Howard Knauf said:


> Don't mean to sound facetious Chris but a google areal will not depict the dynamic at that point in time, only a pic of the area. Won't do much to clear up this discussion on whether the cop was right or wrong.





Christopher Smith said:


> I understand that you can still get a line of sight. Are you saying you can't tell anything from that?


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Katie Finlay said:


> Anyway, Nicole is fantastic. We are on the same page. But Nicole, I can't PM you because your box is full!


Hey Katie, sorry about that. I finally reached my destination and am now able to receive PMs. 

Hope you are having a great holiday! Take care.


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

Howard Knauf said:


> I shoulda been a fireman. Everyone loves hose draggers.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjzGaSQX0iU&ei=WxLWUZ6jGOLkiAf7koHYBA&usg=AFQjCNFijOcRB14N-Nly0cDCdiZqjDX9Iw


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Christopher Jones said:


> www.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DPjzGaSQX0iU&ei=WxLWUZ6jGOLkiAf7koHYBA&usg=AFQjCNFijOcRB14N-Nly0cDCdiZqjDX9Iw




Being an AXE commercial I was expecting that gal to stick her nose in the hoser's arm pit.  :-&


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I have a simple answer for this whole dog shooting. 
Clickers and doggy treats would have defused the whole situation.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Christopher Jones said:


> www.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DPjzGaSQX0iU&ei=WxLWUZ6jGOLkiAf7koHYBA&usg=AFQjCNFijOcRB14N-Nly0cDCdiZqjDX9Iw



Nice


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Christopher Smith said:


> I understand that you can still get a line of sight. Are you saying you can't tell anything from that?


 If you're engineering a neighborhood. All of em are pretty much the same...streets and houses. Google maps won't show where people may, or may not have been standing when the shots were fired. I can tell you that I nearly had to kill someone in an identical setting and prior to the shot I was scanning my backdrop for something solid and for any innocent persons that may have been in the area. If you gotta shoot, you gotta shoot. You can't magically make a safe gun range appear when you're in the shit in a neighborhood when things go bad. My point is that the video shows NONE of the backdrop or the location of people who may have been around when the shooting occurred. Being as it was an armed stand off I would hazard a guess that the streets would be more devoid of spectators as opposed to maybe a high risk traffic stop. That would only be a guess because I wasn't there. I do however know police procedure in this sort of situation and public safety is at the top of the list just in case the lead starts flying like it did here.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Howard Knauf said:


> If you're engineering a neighborhood. All of em are pretty much the same...streets and houses. Google maps won't show where people may, or may not have been standing when the shots were fired. I can tell you that I nearly had to kill someone in an identical setting and prior to the shot I was scanning my backdrop for something solid and for any innocent persons that may have been in the area. If you gotta shoot, you gotta shoot. You can't magically make a safe gun range appear when you're in the shit in a neighborhood when things go bad. My point is that the video shows NONE of the backdrop or the location of people who may have been around. Being as it was an armed stand off I would hazard a guess that the streets would be more devoid of spectators as opposed to maybe a high risk traffic stop.


But shouldn't you assume that inside every one of those houses that there are people?


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Christopher Smith said:


> But shouldn't you assume that inside every one of those houses that there are people?


 Of course but there are no perfect shooting enviroments except a range. Dogs, walls, cars, the ground etc all stop hollow point bullets very effectively. In this case the shots were at a steep downward angle. In my case the shots would have been center mass...a much higher chance of hitting a building or going through a window.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Howard Knauf said:


> Of course but there are no perfect shooting enviroments except a range. Dogs, walls, cars, the ground etc all stop hollow point bullets very effectively. In this case the shots were at a steep downward angle. In my case the shots would have been center mass...a much higher chance of hitting a building or going through a window.


Howard do you know if would it ever be practical or even effective for a law enforcement officer to use something non lethal like pepper spray or a taser gun in a similar situation? I don't know how effective or how easy it would be to subdue an aggressive dog with those kinds of things, which is why I'm asking.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

susan tuck said:


> Howard do you know if would it ever be practical or even effective for a law enforcement officer to use something non lethal like pepper spray or a taser gun in a similar situation? I don't know how effective or how easy it would be to subdue an aggressive dog with those kinds of things, which is why I'm asking.


 It's been done numerous times. OC doesn't work that well, if at alll and hitting a small moving target is with a taser is hard to do. Just last week an officer in the city next to me tased a pitbull (so they said it was) and after the 5 second ride the dog attacked the officer and tore his arm/wrist up so bad he'll likely have to medically retire.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Howard Knauf said:


> Of course but there are no perfect shooting enviroments except a range. Dogs, walls, cars, the ground etc all stop hollow point bullets very effectively. In this case the shots were at a steep downward angle. In my case the shots would have been center mass...a much higher chance of hitting a building or going through a window.


I understand that and agree. But it plays into my general feeling about the video. I see a guy being detained for a misdemeanor, not a violent felon. And that situation turned into a situation where a firearm was discharged in a very populated area. There are no doubts in my mind that the officers were within policy, but I think these situations can be handled differently in many cases.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Howard Knauf said:


> It's been done numerous times. OC doesn't work that well, if at alll and hitting a small moving target with a taser is hard to do. Just last week an officer in the city next to me tased a pitbull (so they said it was) and after the 5 second ride the dog attacked the officer and tore his arm/wrist up so bad he'll likely have to medically retire.


oh man, that's awful, I guess that answers that.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Try telling that to the Rottie. The human complied without incident. His dog however didn't get the memo. Law enforcement, and life in general is fluid wherein most times we have no influence on the dynamics, only reacting the best way we believe at the time given what we know and the circumstances driving those decisions. Sometimes they're good, sometimes not. Would I personally have shot the dog? No, because I'm not afraid of dogs and know how to handle em. Not everyone is us.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

I think the moral to this whole story is that a reasonable person shouldn't yell at the police, keep his music loud, and then leave his dog loose to go deal with them (all at the scene of a potential gunfight that had been ongoing for over an hour and a half). 

If he were on my property yelling at me, I'd love to have their help in removing him and his dog from my lawn. I wouldn't even mind a neighbor taping it as I could show his actions in court.

I'd like anyone who sees this guys actions as correct to speak up. As in. " I'd do the same thing. Turn my music up. Yell at the police and then confront them with my dog loose at the scene of a potential gun fight. It's how we do things to affect change in my neck of the woods." 

Someone, please tell me this is correct behavior for you or your kids.

If he weren't there, the cops wouldn't have had to shoot the dog. That is a fact.

His parents should be sued by the department for having him as a baby and not raising him better. That is as reasonable an argument for anything I have heard here for the police or their actions, here.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Christopher, I think your post is a very reasonable way to look at the situation. 

One solution is since he was there and acted very inappropriately putting the officers lives and the public at risk, he should be punished accordingly and have that go viral on the internet.

Keeping accountability of police is important. But not at the risk of that man creating this situation. He didn't have to be there, but the cops did.



Christopher Smith said:


> I understand that and agree. But it plays into my general feeling about the video. I see a guy being detained for a misdemeanor, not a violent felon. And that situation turned into a situation where a firearm was discharged in a very populated area. There are no doubts in my mind that the officers were within policy, but I think these situations can be handled differently in many cases.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> I think the moral to this whole story is that a reasonable person shouldn't yell at the police, keep his music loud, and then leave his dog loose to go deal with them (all at the scene of a potential gunfight that had been ongoing for over an hour and a half). .....
> 
> .


 Can't disagree with that. Had the guy quietly stayed across the street to make his ameteur video things would have ended differently I'm sure. I go to incidents involving large crowds on a fairly regular basis and it's not uncommon to have 25 cell phones pointed at us while we conduct business. No big deal because we're filming too. Now, the minute someone sticks one in my face at night with the bright light on at night, that person is going to get some extra attention if he blinds me to a point that it becomes a safety issue for me.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

This guy was not going to go away...he new what he was doing but probably did not mean to get his dog killed.

From CBS News

Rosby has filed six previous complaints against Hawthorne police, including one lawsuit which alleges officers broke his rib, KCAL9′s Cristy Fajardo reported.

Rosby said one of the officers named in the suit spotted him at the barricade scene.

“I saw him, and he noticed me,” he said. “He pointed at me.”


----------



## David Winners (Apr 4, 2012)

Howard Knauf said:


> Chris, Try telling that to the Rottie. The human complied without incident. His dog however didn't get the memo. Law enforcement, and life in general is fluid wherein most times we have no influence on the dynamics, only reacting the best way we believe at the time given what we know and the circumstances driving those decisions. Sometimes they're good, sometimes not. Would I personally have shot the dog? No, because I'm not afraid of dogs and know how to handle em. Not everyone is us.




First, thanks for what you do Howard. This was not a handler. That is obvious. I wish it was for the dog's sake.


On to the topic:

People who haven't been there, just can't understand. There is a rate at which you have to analyze the situation, make decisions, and act accordingly, all while controlling the situation, maintaining situational awareness, and keeping communication open. Everything changes quickly, and you have to adjust to meet threats as they appear. The more direct the threats are, the more fluid the situation is, the higher this rate must be. Most people can not comprehend what is going on inside during a situation like this. They think movies are real, video games are accurate, and you have all the time in the world to make the perfect call every time. They will spend 20 minutes analyzing a video, and condemn the professional who had a split second to make a decision. 

You know what most shit talkers do in their first real firefight? Nothing, for at least the initial contact. Then they look to you with fear in their eyes, hoping you can make decisions for them because their brain just exploded. Their hands don't even work.

There is no rewind, respawn, do over, pause, or panel of experts to consult when shit goes down. You have your nerves, your training, your conscience, and your experience to draw from. You are battling the chemicals racing through your system. Ever been in a near car crash and feel like you're in a dream afterwards? Deal with that for 2 hours or more, while making life or death decisions.

Jim, none of that happens on the range, guy. That's why I wanted everyone to know your experience level. I already knew by your first post. You may know the mechanics of shooting. Good for you. You now have a grasp on about 1% of a real world situation. Real shooters train the mechanics until they don't think about them any more. They have the world to deal with. Range studs think they know everything there is to know about shooting. Does throwing 1000 football passes in your backyard every day make you an NFL quarterback? 


This whole conversation is like a supply officer investigating me for a shooting in which my front plate was shattered by 2 rounds, before I returned fire. This is why Dave brought up the jury thing. We are often judged by people who have never been in a like situation. It's like having 12 deaf people judging American Idol. 

I don't automatically think the Officer did the right thing because he is a Police Officer. You will notice that I didn't immediately come to his defense. I simply stated that we don't have all the information. I even stated some possibilities to the contrary. No one here is knowledgeable enough to pass judgement on the Officer.




In the end, the dog owner seems to have been interfering with the operation. He is risking the lives of all the officers and civilians in the area. I'm sorry the dog paid the price for his stupid owner.


----------



## David Winners (Apr 4, 2012)

Sorry for the language in the previous post. Mods feel free to edit as you wish.


----------



## David Winners (Apr 4, 2012)

Christopher Smith said:


> I understand that you can still get a line of sight. Are you saying you can't tell anything from that?


You could get line of sight by standing on the street, right where the Officer was standing, facing the same angle. Whatever imagery is available from google will not depict that angle. It was taken from a compact car wearing cameras as it drove through the intersection. The lenses also distort the imagery at the periphery due to the increased field of view used. 

Statements, pictures and video could be collected from witnesses that would hopefully properly place any civilians and sources of collateral damage in the proper location so the backdrop could be properly be scrutinized. Lots of CAD, mannequins, cardboard boxes and string are involved.


----------



## Charles Corbitt (Oct 24, 2012)

Speaking from a retired LEO point of view, it was obviously a high risk warrant, probably narcotics. In the video their were mistakes on both the officer's side and the dog owner's. The dog owner was there for a reason, he had filed numerous complaint's against the Hawthorne PD in the past and was probably hoping to get some abuse or something on video. Should not have brought his dog to that situation or should have had him secured in his car. The officers on the other hand should have been watching the dog and the situation before they contacted the owner, they should have been smarter in their tactics. Nearly 20 years in Narcotics and SWAT, I have dealt with a lot of dogs, never had to shoot one. In my mind the one that did not get what they deserved in the video was the Rottie. Watched it once yesterday and will not watch it again. My 2 cents worth.


----------



## David Winners (Apr 4, 2012)

Charles Corbitt said:


> Speaking from a retired LEO point of view, it was obviously a high risk warrant, probably narcotics. In the video their were mistakes on both the officer's side and the dog owner's. The dog owner was there for a reason, he had filed numerous complaint's against the Hawthorne PD in the past and was probably hoping to get some abuse or something on video. Should not have brought his dog to that situation or should have had him secured in his car. The officers on the other hand should have been watching the dog and the situation before they contacted the owner, they should have been smarter in their tactics. Nearly 20 years in Narcotics and SWAT, I have dealt with a lot of dogs, never had to shoot one. In my mind the one that did not get what they deserved in the video was the Rottie. Watched it once yesterday and will not watch it again. My 2 cents worth.




Thanks for sharing your experienced opinion. It took me several times to actually watch the whole video. I kept stopping it before the dog got shot. I've shot a lot of dogs, and it really bothers me.

I'm really interested in how you would have handled the owner to avoid the situation with the dog. Would you be willing to share how you would address the situation?


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

David Winners said:


> You could get line of sight by standing on the street, right where the Officer was standing, facing the same angle. Whatever imagery is available from google will not depict that angle. It was taken from a compact car wearing cameras as it drove through the intersection. The lenses also distort the imagery at the periphery due to the increased field of view used.
> 
> Statements, pictures and video could be collected from witnesses that would hopefully properly place any civilians and sources of collateral damage in the proper location so the backdrop could be properly be scrutinized. Lots of CAD, mannequins, cardboard boxes and string are involved.


I grew up in that neighborhood and no for a fact that it is impossible to take that shot without putting people at risk.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Charles Corbitt said:


> Speaking from a retired LEO point of view, it was obviously a high risk warrant, probably narcotics. In the video their were mistakes on both the officer's side and the dog owner's. The dog owner was there for a reason, he had filed numerous complaint's against the Hawthorne PD in the past and was probably hoping to get some abuse or something on video. Should not have brought his dog to that situation or should have had him secured in his car. The officers on the other hand should have been watching the dog and the situation before they contacted the owner, they should have been smarter in their tactics. Nearly 20 years in Narcotics and SWAT, I have dealt with a lot of dogs, never had to shoot one. In my mind the one that did not get what they deserved in the video was the Rottie. Watched it once yesterday and will not watch it again. My 2 cents worth.


Good post.:thumbup:

Btw, it was not a warrant, it was a burglary.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

David
besides what has already been posted, i was not impressed with the way the dog was stopped
of course i wasn't there doing it and i realize how to quickly stop a dog may not be on the average LE training syllabus either

but since you have had to do it a number of times :
- from that range, and with a handgun and typical LE load, should it have taken more than a couple shots ? one to stop it and another to turn the lights out ?
- what i saw and heard looked more like a snap decision and an adrenaline rush rather than controlled marksmanship while maintaining weapons discipline

reason i asked is i don't expect professionalism from professionals, i demand it and hold them to higher standards....especially when lethal force is applied 

hard to hold back on any more comments but will since it seems like it has been covered from most angles

but regarding securing the dog
ALL on scene should have seen the window open
ALL should have known dogs can jump out of windows to rejoin the owner

LE was NOT performing heart surgery ](*,)
... they were standing by to standby and had PLENTY of time to require the suspect to secure the car with the dog inside FIRST, b4 apprehending, and this could have been done with full control and minimal risk of the suspect driving off or digging up a weapon from inside the vehicle

pure and simple, LE just didn't maintain the big pic and were too concerned with cuffing the asshole....PLENTY of back up hanging around that could have assisted and made it an incident free arrest and prevented a decent dog from being killed

any comments on the above ?
Tx
rick


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

_"but regarding securing the dog ... ALL on scene should have seen the window open ... ALL should have known dogs can jump out of windows to rejoin the owner ... any comments on the above ?"_


Yes, you're right.

If it was my dog, it was my job, but you are still right.



It really is relatively easy to break it down into mistakes and alternative scenarios when we are spending days thinking about it and doing "what if," but I'm not sure I'd be so good at it in the situation, with the dog apparently attacking, and me feeling fear (and we have no way of knowing how much) for myself and for others with me.


I admit that I personally would be quick to blame LE if I were the dog's owner; I admit that I'd be unable to face my own bad decision-making about my dog, knowing that I could have prevented it.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Christopher Smith said:


> I grew up in that neighborhood and no for a fact that it is impossible to take that shot without putting people at risk.



It's impossible in EVERY neighborhood to take a shot without putting people at risk. Wherever you find people, and bullets flying, there is risk.

Connie....the owner will NEVER take responsibility.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Rick.

Crazy idea here, but maybe you don't know what you are talking about at all. Why would a cop let a guy go back to his gun storage locker in the shape of a car? You ever think he might have want to draw them in? Sure seemed like his behavior would lead you to believe that. 

All on scene knew the guy was more dangerous than the dog.
All on scene should have been focused on their initial job, instead of that guy.
All on scene had to include that guy in their handling of the situation once he introduced himself into it like the dumbass he was.

Please, Rick. justify what he did. You are him. Why was he right? anything? Bleeding heart shit ideas of what cops should do, never, ever negate the fact that that guy caused his dog to die, just like he pulled the trigger himself. ANY REASONABLE PERSON CAN SEE THAT.






rick smith said:


> David
> besides what has already been posted, i was not impressed with the way the dog was stopped
> of course i wasn't there doing it and i realize how to quickly stop a dog may not be on the average LE training syllabus either
> 
> ...


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

I think another important lesson here is the value of a really solid, bomb proofed, platz/down command. Of course, the main thing would have been for the owner to secure the dog in the first place, but barring that, a reliable platz/down command would have also worked.


----------



## Tonya Beam (Jun 18, 2013)

susan tuck said:


> I think another important lesson here is the value of a really solid, bomb proofed, platz/down command. Of course, the main thing would have been for the owner to secure the dog in the first place, but barring that, a reliable platz/down command would have also worked.


 
I have to agree with this. I have stopped two males fighting with this command. They just dropped without thinking. 

The owner was responsible. Had he secured his dog, we wouldn't be here discussing this. Better yet, had he not brought the dog, we would not be discussing this. Why did he have the dog there in the first place? If he was known to follow police around and do this, why bring the dog? We can't make other's responsible for our dogs, the officers were not responsible for making sure the dog was properly contained. As horrified as I was at seeing this video, the owner was at fault.


----------



## Ben Thompson (May 2, 2009)

Those kinds of guns should only be owned by the general public.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Nicole Stark said:


> Ah yes, I realize what's happening here. I was preoccupied with other things last week to know what our crisis of the week was, but here, this one is the WDF crisis for this week.
> 
> Why is it that damned near everything needs to be judged, labeled, examined, and picked apart till there's virtually nothing left of it. Everything else aside, I participate in this forum to read informative posts, learn about new products or techniques and get a good laugh from time to time but one thing I did not sign up for was this bullshit drama that people seem to cling to as a necessary part of their lives.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> Some days I hate how ****ing stupid, blind and thoughtless some people are on this forum. Today is one of those days.
> 
> It scares me thinking that you are all supposed to be a jury of my peers if I need one....


Well, that's one thing we agree on =D>


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Nicole Stark said:


> Ah yes, I realize what's happening here. I was preoccupied with other things last week to know what our crisis of the week was, but here, this one is the WDF crisis for this week.
> 
> Why is it that damned near everything needs to be judged, labeled, examined, and picked apart till there's virtually nothing left of it. Everything else aside, I participate in this forum to read informative posts, learn about new products or techniques and get a good laugh from time to time but one thing I did not sign up for was this bullshit drama that people seem to cling to as a necessary part of their lives.
> 
> ...


Amen


----------

