Skip to main content

View Diary: Police arrest a man for videotaping/playing music ... then they shoot his dog. (161 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's totally unfair. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zed, Texknight

    I watched the video and it is disturbing....on a number of levels. First off, the arrest is totally unjustified. However, it appears the guy's conduct was not without reproach. The ones filming him videotaping where nervously tittering and laughing at his brazenness. While we can't hear much of the interaction he had with the police before he puts the dog in the car, it's clear he could have been cooperative and instead chose to be oppositional.  

    Also, I would say he was utterly irresponsible with respect to the dog, leaving the windows all down, no doubt so he could continue to hear the music -- because he didn't want to do what the police asked. Putting the dog in the car was not a well-thought out action, if he was just going to leave the windows wide open.

    Then, there's the way this dog -- which looks to me to be at least part rotwiler -- reacted to the arrest and did charge at the one officer, in particular. Sure, the officer was probably trigger-happy -- he might not have been bitten and his life was probably not in danger given the presence of the other officers.

    That said, his fear at that moment was not unreasonable. If you watch the video, I don't see how you can imagine as the diarist supposes that the dog might have been playful. The dog was clearly responding to his owner being handcuffed and led away. As for the officer, he as trying to defend himself against a dog attack by a breed that is notoriously aggressive and dangerous.

    True, the whole thing could have been avoided, but there is plenty of fault to go around there.

    Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you:

    by FischFry on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 11:51:10 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  How would the dog know? (4+ / 0-)

      How would the dog know it was an arrest and not just his master playing with some men in funny hats?

      If the guy was screaming or upset the dog would get upset, but if this is a well trained dog it should not be upset by seeing its master interacting with some people in a calm way.

      The guy went out of his way to make it calm.

      It was a mistake to leave the windows open, but the bigger issue is the whole premise that the cops are operation under that they can just arrest people who annoy them.

      Maybe, the dog did attack. I don't think we can tell, but that is not really the issue here at all!

      •  What is the issue? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        futurebird, here4tehbeer

        If it's the arrest -- that was definitely an overreaction to a guy who was being a stupid prick -- doing his "job" of neighborhood cop watching. On that point, I agree.

        If it's the dog being shot, I don't agree. I can see why the cop thought he was in danger at that moment. I think you can tell the dog was not being playful. It's hard to see if the dog was just fearful and objecting to his owner's treatment, or whether he was actually attacking the officer, but he lunged and he was either angry or scared. I think the officer probably could have avoided shooting the dog, but I cannot say his fear at the moment was unreasonable.

        Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you:

        by FischFry on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 12:05:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Proper training (5+ / 0-)

          The bottom line is that with a small amount of dog/ animal behavioral training and a can of dogspray these officers could've easily handled the situation without incident.

          Instead they chose to shoot and kill the dog in a public area, likely endangering observers and bystanders in the process.

          This behavior is a hallmark of our highly militarized, increasingly violent and unstable law enforcement organizations in the US.

          •  Dog spray? (0+ / 0-)

            Seriously? So, every officer should carry dog spray, whatever that is on them at all times, and should rely on that to defend them as a dog is lunging for them? and, their small amount of behavioral training will lead them to be able to calm dogs in situations like that?

            Chose to shoot and kill? You think that was a choice? That was a quick-reacting officer who was terrified by a lunging Rotwiler. He didn't make a choice. He reacted.

            Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you:

            by FischFry on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 02:50:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Cops don't carry pepper spray? That would've... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Fieldswithoutfences, chase

              ...done enough and Max wouldn't have been killed.
              Max didn't need to be killed.  Most cops carry pepper spray (every cop I've been around, and they're in my workplace every day), there were non-lethal ways to handle this.  

              This was in no way a life or death scenario, Max was outnumbered and the officers lives were never in danger.

            •  RE: Proper training (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              If the postal service can figure It out there's simply no reason the police can't.

              Coupled with proper animal training (no more than a few hours) these kind of events can be prevented, which will ultimately save the taxpayer money by preventing lawsuits against law enforcement agencies.

              He made the choice to use lethal force on Max, something a police officer should NEVER do unless absolute certain their life is in danger. They carried pepper spray and they outnumbered the dog, their first reaction should not have been to use lethal force plain and simple. Max was killed due to incompetence.

              •  Post script (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                And proper training doesn't necessarily mean calming the dog, it's about knowing the rather simple psychology of a dog so you know how to appropriately react in a situation and not exacerbating it.

                Simple thing like knowing that dogs perceive sunglasses as giant predatory eyes, so they are more likely to negatively react to people wearing them.

                Training and knowledge trump blind violence every time.

        •  If the STUPID FUCK... (4+ / 0-)

          ...wasn't hassling someone for recording them, then the Rottie wouldna "lunged" at him...

          The channel on XM that Randi's on is the right-wing channel that carries other Premier Network "personalities" and the news on that channel is this right-wing-bullshit IRN network news that delivers RW Talking Points amid the "news" and they're reporting this story totally from the position that the poor threatened officer had to defend himself when the dog "dangerously lunged" at him...

          "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

          by leftykook on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 01:20:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Right (0+ / 0-)

            Because right wing talking points are stupid. Unlike left wing talking points.

            Whatever you think led up tot his, I think the video clearly supports the view that the officer reacted to a Rotwiler barking and lunging at him. You can see and hear that much. If you're not seeing and hearing that much, you're not using your eyes and ears....even if that coincides with right wing radio talking points.

            Then, there's the question of why the police were"hassling" him, but not others with cameras. And, we could argue about which stupid fuck was the stupidest fuck here.

            Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you:

            by FischFry on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 02:21:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  what is totally unfair (13+ / 0-)

      is that you have to worry these days if you, your family and the family pet will survive a traffic stop.   If this was a one off, maybe.  But it is not.  

    •  There is a hole in your logic (12+ / 0-)

      If the arrest was unwarranted, then anything that results from that mistake is ultimately due to that mistake.  I hold the police to a higher standard precisely because they have the power to arrest and use force.  When they use those powers unwisely, it is their fault for whatever the bad consequences are.  Can a citizen influence the situation through their actions?  Sure, but I always put more responsibility for any interactions with citizens on the police and expect them to uphold strict standards.

      There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

      by slothlax on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 12:28:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The arrest was an overreaction (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        However, the guy could have avoided the whole confrontation. So, why not start the blame there and say anything that followed was due to that mistake?

        There's a legal doctrine that's relevant here" "Last clear chance." Whoever had the last clear chance to avoid a tragedy bears responsibility.

        Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you:

        by FischFry on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 12:33:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Your post makes no sense. None. (4+ / 0-)

          The police need a complete reboot. In a lawful system, this would not happen. The police broke the law. Your answer: blame the victim. Seriously, you don't make sense.

          A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

          by onionjim on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 01:22:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There's the law -- and, then there's common sense (0+ / 0-)

            We could argue whether the police broke some law, but clearly this guy showed no common sense.  We all break some laws, but not necessarily showing no common sense. Part of that can be a lack of understanding and perspective.  What looks like senseless behavior from the outside maybe not so from the inside.

            I'll be accused of going off the rails here but I'll use, as an example, a racial/cultural stereotype that I've heard comedians note and that I've found has real basis in fact. Many of us jaywalk -- as a New Yorker, I'm a big offender -- but there are observable cultural differences. Whites tend to hurry across, and move more quickly when a car is rapidly approaching.  But, many blacks do not, especially in cities, as if they expect the cars to slow down for them. I'm not saying that either group acts one way or the other, but I'm not the only one to observe a stereotypical, generalizable difference. I don't know where that difference springs from -- it may be that because fewer African-Americans have driver's license, that we are observing folks who do less driving and are less fearful of cars, assuming, I'd say wrongly, that drivers can see them and will expect their slow march to continue. I can say that this behavior seems riskier to me, but I guess I can also see others saying it's actually riskier to run across the street because you might fall. Where does common sense lie?

            Here we have a situation where a black guy is determined to protect his neighbors and be vigilant about the police, instead of giving them the deference they generally expect. We could argue about which side is using common sense as the confrontation begins. Maybe, it's a cultural difference. From his perspective -- he's a concerned African-American doing some sacred duty to make sure the scene is recorded either to prevent the white police from acting badly or to record it if they do.  From their perspective -- the white police are trying to control the scene, and this guy is practically getting in their faces, in contrast to the other filmers. Not to mention he's got this Rotwiler. And, the music....

            You can argue that police did not use common sense -- and, because they have guns, it is incumbent on them to avoid situations that might escalate. But, on the other hand, they have guns and handcuffs and, to my mind, it is common sense to be at least somewhat respectful. To their minds, too.

            If you think he's blameless for his behavior and what ensued, then you have to explain why the kids filming him are constantly tittering their amazement at his actions, as they clearly think he's acting in a way that is risky and will not end well.  

            You may say he was within his rights, but I'm focusing on whether he used any common sense. Just because you're acting lawfully doesn't mean you are blameless. The law books are filled with stories of people who were acting lawfully until something terrible happened because they were acting stupidly -- negligently or even recklessly.

            Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you:

            by FischFry on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 02:15:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  In all fairness, it's also easy (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FischFry, Fieldswithoutfences

              to say that "it's common sense to be at least somewhat respectful" when one doesn't have to worry about being unfairly treated by police because of one's skin color.

              •  I do get that. (0+ / 0-)

                I mean, you can't look at this without a racial frame. Look at the fact of the guy filming. Because he's black, everyone assumes that he's tying to keep the cops honest -- presumably, the cops themselves saw that as antagonistic. Whereas if a white guy were doing the filming, he might be seen as a would-be newshound. I used to run with a camera when I herd fire engines around my street when I was a kid.

                Today, cameras are freighted with all kinds of meaning hey never used to have, but in this situation we all make the same assumptions about why and how everyone acted in this situation,. we come to that based on our impressions of what a black guy with a rotwiler would be doing and what white LA cops would be doing...but, add in our own racial perspectives, and that frame becomes multilayered.

                I might even suspect that we maybe watching different things. Once the dog comes out, my focus is on the dog, and I see what the cop does in reaction. Comments from others about what they observed suggest to me that others may be more focused on the interaction ongoing between the cops and the handcuffed dude....

                Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you:

                by FischFry on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 03:19:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well, yeah. (0+ / 0-)

                  The fact of the matter is, considering the Hawthorn Police Department's recent history, it's entirely likely that what some see as the guy filming having been acting oppositional was caused by the fact that he figured the cops were going to come harass him because he was black.  

                  I'm not necessarily saying it couldn't have been handled better.  I'm simply saying I think it's understandable that he responded the way he did, considering both the police department's history with those they're supposed to protect, and his own personal history with the department.

                  Hell, now that I think about it, he may have even thought they were targeting him specifically because he had a lawsuit against them.

                  As I say in every thread I end up posting in here about police issues, there's a reason N.W.A. wrote "Fuck the Police."

                •  Yeah, so it was his own fault that he didn't (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  futurebird, jfromga, pitbullgirl65, chase

                  "respect their authoritah" so he (and we) should just STFU and accept the consequences.  Yet another case of the authoritarians coming out to defend the unjustified actions of the cops.  I bet you would say "he had it coming" had the officer decided to shoot the guy in the head.

                  You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

                  by Throw The Bums Out on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 05:56:16 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm tempted to HR that (0+ / 0-)

                    And I toss about one donut per year.

                    Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you:

                    by FischFry on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 06:09:14 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well except for the last part that is exactly (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      what you said.  After all, you did say "yeah but he had it coming".

                      You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

                      by Throw The Bums Out on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 06:16:54 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Why it's what you said. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      And also black people jaywalk more slowly? Really?

                      My jaw hit the floor at how racist that was.

                      •  It's not what I said. (0+ / 0-)

                        It's not even close to what I said...and even THrow hte Bums Out acknowledged that.

                        As for your other observation - about the jaywaking reference I made -- I have to respond.

                        I was clear about the jaywalking bit, that I was referencing an observation that I've heard numerous comedians make. Not that it matters, but I've heard this from both white and black comedians, but mostly black comedians. It's a comedic observation and obviously a stereotype, as I made very clear in the comment, but it might reflect cultural difference predicated on different experiences.

                        I wasn't saying it's true or not, and I said it certainly wouldn't be universally true even if there were some truth to it -- But, as I wrote, I was offering it up as an example of something where what seems like a common sense way to act (or lack thereof) to one group of people might not be how another group acts and may not seem like common sense to them....all down to different experiences.

                        Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you:

                        by FischFry on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 05:14:08 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Just STFU (0+ / 0-)

                          Your concern is duly noted. Keep whiteknighting for the police.
                          L.E has a history of violence against POC and for you to whitesplain it ( black ppl jaywalk differently?! what the hell is wrong with you?) shows your ignorance and privilege.

                          Of course I shouldn't be surprised: it's the Daily Kos. Some of you get your knickers in a twist when cops are demonized, or when your racist, sexist, classism is pointed out to you

                          "Growing your own food is like growing your own money" Ron Finley guerilla gardener extraordinaire.

                          by pitbullgirl65 on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 07:01:56 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  One nore time (0+ / 0-)

                            I wasn't endorsing it as a fact -- I was fishing for a trivial example of how different groups might act quite normally in ways that seem nonsensical to others -- and remembered this notion that I've heard more than a couple of well-known comedians make, and one that I thought might draw a knowing chuckle.  

                            I wasn't whitesplaining anything, and I'm sorry if it came off that way. Nor was I defending violence against POC, and it makes no sense to suggest that because we were discussing an incident where a dog was shot.

                            Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you:

                            by FischFry on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 10:22:11 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

            •  kneel before Zod (0+ / 0-)

              because that way Zod won't kill you or your dog or your kid carrying his puppy home or whatever.   The police are to serve and protect the people, not terrorize them, abuse them and shoot their dogs after they have bullied someone.

        •  Again, they were objecting to him RECORDING... (4+ / 0-)

          ...THEM IN PUBLIC.

          Courts have ruled over and over again that you don't have any expectation of privacy standing in a public street, why do those fuktwits feel they're so fucken special that they can harrass citizens who are keeping an eye on them?

          "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

          by leftykook on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 01:24:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Again.... (0+ / 0-)

            I didn't make this point, but others did -- he wasn't the only one filming, but he's the one whose actions led him into confrontation with the police.

            They were clearly dealing with what they perceived as a real situation, given the size of the police  response there -- and there's this jerk who not only thinks he's the self-appointed watchdog on the police, but is parading his rotwiler around, isn't keeping a respectful distance and is  blaring music from his car as if this was some entertainment spectacle/street party. And, this jerk refuses to turn down his music....

            Also, courts have never held you have no expectation of privacy on a public street -- they've just ruled that the police may briefly stop you and even frisk you if they have a reasonable, articulable suspicion.

            Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you:

            by FischFry on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 01:46:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  That attitude is the problem (0+ / 0-)

          The police are an instrument of accountability, but whenever they do wrong their refuse to accept accountability for they own actions.  We are either supposed to sweep their misconduct under the carpet out of some kind of deference to the difficulty of their job or they blame the victim, but somehow no police officer ever seems to just say, "Hey, I overreacted and next time I will conduct myself in a more controlled way."  They aren't perfect, I don't expect them to be, but I do expect people who are given as much power in our society as the police to be accountable for their use of that power.  For people who are supposed to be brave and honorable men and women, I find police officers to be quite thin skinned.

          There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

          by slothlax on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 11:11:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  It should be pointed out ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ...that it would have been an exceptionally bad idea, at this point, to get into the car and turn the ignition to AUX on it to put the windows up, if it had electric windows.  Or even to reach into it with a portion of your body hidden to roll up manual windows.  That could have resulted in the owner being shot, and not just the dog.

    •  Sorry, but you can't say that a breed (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      is more aggressive and dangerous than others.  In fact, statistics on dog attacks by breed are, as I understand it, largely useless, since often the dogs are mixes, or other breeds that are mistaken for a "more dangerous" one.  Plus, there's the owner to factor in.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site